View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by University of the Western Cape Research Repository Research Report Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Tshililo Manenzhe and Edward Lahiff

COMMISSION Department of ON RESTITUTION Land Affairs School of Government, UWC Belgische Technische Coöperatie nv OF LAND RIGHTS Coopération Technique Belge sa Restitution and Post-Settlement Support

Three Case studies from Limpopo

Tshililo Manenzhe and Edward Lahiff

Published by the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, Cape Town, South . Tel: +27 21 959 3733. Fax: +27 21 959 3732. E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.plaas.org.za

In collaboration with Department of Land Affairs, Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Belgische Technische Coöperatie (BTC) Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies research report no. 30

ISBN: 978-1-86808-675-7 August 2007

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior permission from the publisher or the authors.

Copy editor: Roelien Theron Cover photograph: PLAAS Layout: Designs4development, [email protected] Typeset in Frutiger Printing: RNK Graphics Cartographer: John Hall Research Report

Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo Tshililo Manenzhe and Edward Lahiff

This document forms part of a series of reports researched and written by the Sustainable Development Consortium, led by Phuhlisani Solutions, on behalf of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Belgian Technical Cooperation. Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

ii Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Contents

Acronyms ii 1. Introduction 1 2. Munzhedzi case study 2 Overview of the Munzhedzi community claim 2 Needs and aspirations of claimants at Munzhedzi 3 Institutions of ownership and administration 4 Land acquisition and access 5 Land use and livelihood activities 6 Support institutions (government and non-government) 7 3. Mavungeni case study 9 Overview of the Mavungeni community claim 9 Land acquisition and access 11 Land ownership and institutional/organisational arrangement 13 Land use and livelihoods activities 13 Provision of support services, by governmental and non-governmental organisations 15 4. Ximange case study 16 Land acquisition and access 17 Claimants’ land needs and aspirations 19 Institutions of land ownership and administration 19 Land use and livelihoods activities 20 Support institutions (government and non-government) 23 5. Conclusion 25 6. Source documents 28 Primary source documents 28 Secondary source documents 28 List of informants 28 Focus group discussions 29

iii Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Acronyms

CASP Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme CPA Communal Property Association CRLR Commission on Restitution of Land Rights DLA Department of Land Affairs IDP Integrated Development Plan LDA Limpopo Department of Agriculture LUDP Land Use and Development Plan NGO Non-governmental Organisation PLRO Provincial Land Reform Office RLCC Regional Land Claims Commission (Limpopo) S 42D Section 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 SADT South African Development Trust SLAG Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant ZSR Zoutpansberg Skirmishes Routes

iv Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

1. Introduction

This study examines the experience of land reform reform beneficiaries, government officials and workers from beneficiaries after land acquisition in three communal non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on a regular basis. property associations (CPAs) in Limpopo province, namely The study made use of structured and semi-structured Munzhedzi, Ximange and Mavungeni CPAs. In all three interviews with land reform beneficiaries and key informants, cases, communities were awarded land through land as well as regular observation of community activities and restitution, but Mavungeni also includes a portion of land focus group discussions with beneficiaries. Interviews were acquired under the Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant also conducted with officials from the Limpopo Regional (SLAG) (redistribution) programme. The identified CPAs are Land Claims Commission (RLCC), Limpopo Department located in the same geographical area, under Makhado of Agriculture, Makhado Local Municipality, the Provincial Local Municipality and Vhembe District Municipality, in Land Reform Office (Department of Land Affairs (DLA)) and the north-eastern part of Limpopo (see Map 1). All three members of a local land rights NGO, Nkuzi Development restitution claims were facilitated as a cluster that were Association. officially settled in March 2002. These communities, or parts of them, have been on the land since then, using it The restored properties were all state land that was part for a range of initiatives such as residence, cattle farming, of the former homeland. As a strategy to fast-track dry-land cropping, irrigation, poultry and pig farming. These the process the RLCC grouped the claims and negotiated communities are made up of two main ethnic groups, settlement for all three distinct land claims. All three Tshivenda-speakers and Xitsonga-speakers. The majority of Settlement Agreements were signed by the Minister of the people concerned are poor and unemployed. Agriculture and Land Affairs in December 2001. By the time land was restored to the original owners it was mainly Research methods used for this study included a desk-top unused, and infrastructure, such as buildings, dams and study of relevant documents, such as minutes of meetings fencing, was generally badly damaged and not functional, and correspondence with government departments, plus except for that on a portion of land that was purchased by extensive fieldwork conducted between the years 2004 and members of the Mavungeni community through SLAG from 2006. During fieldwork, the researchers interacted with land a private owner.

Map 1. Vhembe District Municipality (Makhado, and Thulamela municipalities)

0 20 40 km BOTSWANA ZIMBABWE

Musina

Klein

VHEMBE

Thohoyandou

Louis Trichardt

N

Ga-Ramokgopa Morebeng Ga-Modjadi

1 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

2. Munzhedzi case study

Overview of the Munzhedzi (according to community members) Vleifontein 310 LS, community claim Diepgezit 390 LS and Syferfontein 85 LT, but Syferfontein 85 LT was subsequently excluded from the claim (see below). Munzhedzi is the name of a community that originally resided The initial enthusiasm of the claimants for pursuing their in the former Venda homeland, in the area of Nthabalala. claim through the legal route was frustrated by lengthy Nthabalala was one of the sons of Thovhele Rasithu Ravele bureaucratic delays in the processing of the claim, and Ramabulana, who was granted the area know as Nthabalala lack of communication from the office of the RLCC. Loss of after his father’s death in 1864 (Nemudzivhadi 1985:20). confidence in the official process, and pressure from within Munzhedzi is one of the sons of Nthabalala and was granted the community to address land needs of the people, resulted jurisdiction over land that was later registered as the farm in members of the community, led by their headman, Vleifontein 310 LS, and parts of the farms Syferfontein 85 LT occupying the land prior to the formal settlement of the and Diepgezit 390 LS (Nkuzi 1998). claim [Nngobo, 22/11/2004].3

In 1936, the South African government introduced the A new Munzhedzi settlement was thus established on the labour tenancy system in the Northern Transvaal which western portion of Vleifontein 310 LS and Diepgesit 390 LS in required that all African people should render labour on 1999, when a group of disgruntled members of Munzhedzi white farms in exchange for the permission to stay on community and some landless people from outside the farms. Black people on Vleifontein 310 LS and Diepgezit community, all under the leadership of headman T.J. 390 LS who resisted serving under the labour tenancy Munzhedzi, moved onto the claimed land, demarcated their system were gradually forced to vacate their land. In 1965/6, own residential stands and started constructing shacks. those people who remained on the land were given final Reasons given by the occupiers for taking this action were notices to leave because those farms were meant for white the slow progress of their land claim and the belief that occupation only. In the late 1970s, following a change in the Makhado Local Municipality was planning to proclaim policy, the government bought these farms in order to land west of Vleifontein township (within the Munzhedzi’s expand the Venda homeland. While the land was acquired ancestral land) as an extension of the formal township. They by the state’s South African Development Trust (SADT), alleged that the municipality had announced that new low- and the former white owners were compensated, the land cost housing (‘RDP houses’) would be built on the land.4 The was never formally incorporated into Venda and remained local municipality denied that they were going to proclaim unused for many years. In 1982, part of Vleifontein 310 the land for the extension of the township, saying they LS was proclaimed a township (Vleifontein), intended to were aware of the land claim and supported land access by accommodate Venda speakers who were forcibly removed the previously disadvantaged communities [Muvhumbe, from the old township of , adjacent to the ‘white’ 03/04/2005]. town of . The rest of Vleifontein 310 LS, along with Syferfontein 85 LT and Diepgezit 390 LS, remained in The majority of the claimants did not go onto the land with the hands of the state. headman Munzhedzi in the initial stage of land occupation, reportedly because they already had houses or were Following the passing of the Restitution of Land Rights Act expecting assistance from the government to build them 22 of 1994, the Munzhedzi community under the leadership new houses on the claimed land. As a result, headman of headman T.J. Munzhedzi, organised themselves to lodge Munzhedzi allocated land to anyone who needed land, a land claim. On 1 February 1998, they formed a land claims in order to gain supporters and to reduce the chances of committee1 and lodged a land claim with the Commission removal [Nngobo, 22/11/2004]. In 2001, the office of the on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) on 22 July 1998.2 RLCC (Limpopo) responded by agreeing to the settlement Originally, the properties claimed by Munzhedzi were of the land claim with the return of 1,204 ha of land to the

1 Munzhedzi land claim form, 22 July 1998. 2 Munzhedzi land claim form, 22 July 1998. 3 This style of reference indicates a personal interview, showing the surname of the informant and the date of interview, e.g. [Nngobo, 22/11/2004]. 4 Report of the meeting between Nkuzi and the Munzhedzi Land Claims Committee, 15 October 2000.

2 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Munzhedzi community, which now officially consisted of At Munzhedzi, the RLCC is not able to provide the 486 named members and their dependents.5 necessary support because they [the community] have opted to built houses before the RLCC could assist them The Settlement Agreement entered into between the in the development of a formal settlement; the CPA is Munzhedzi CPA and the Minister for Agriculture and Land dysfunctional with the traditional leadership taking over Affairs on behalf of the state added Zwartfontein 392 LS the authority of the communty [Shilote, 02/08/2006]. to the restored land, as compensation for the loss of land on Vleifontein 310 LS on which the formal township of The RLCC argues that because the land is fully occupied, Vleifontein is built. Syferfontein 85 LT could not be restored there is nothing left to plan for. What they are contemplating to Munzhedzi because of a competing claim by the on doing, however, perhaps with the local municipality, is to neighbouring Shimange community (see below). work on formalisation of the existing settlement. However, internal disputes within the CPA hamper this and, until The Settlement Agreement accepts the validity of the the CPA is better organised, no organisation seems willing Munzhedzi community claim and agrees to the restoration to provide support services such as formal settlement of their land rights. A section on development assistance planning or the provision of water or electricity. was included in the Settlement Agreement, which outlines the release of planning grants and the responsibility of the Delays in the implementation of the Settlement Agreement RLCC to negotiate with the Makhado Local Municipality, resulted in an influx of people from Makhado town and elsewhere, who were allocated housing stands on the Limpopo Department of Agriculture (LDA) and Department claimed land by Headman Munzhedzi. Most of the people of Local Government and Housing to support the CPA in did not have an understanding of the proposed development accessing all necessary grants available in order to assist in plan for the land, or the role of the CPA (of which they were land development.6 not even members) [Kwinda, 06/06/2005]. While there were 7 In addition, the Settlement Agreement provided that 486 members registered as ‘claimants’ during the process of verification, currently there are approximately 1,500 the DLA would release grant-in-aid funding (Restitution residential sites allocated in Munzhedzi and approximately Discretionary Grants and Settlement Planning Grants) to 90% of these are occupied. assist the Munzhedzi CPA to develop their property. These grants were calculated as follows: the total number of Needs and aspirations of claimants eligible for a Restitution Discretionary Grant was claimants at Munzhedzi 486, according to the claimant verification list, each of whom qualified for a grant of R3,000, yielding a total of R1,458,000; The Munzhedzi community land claim was based on the the Settlement Planning Grant was calculated on the basis desire to regain land that was wrongfully taken from them, of R1,140 per claimant, yielding a total of R554,040 [Nkatingi, but was also driven by a variety of current needs, such as 22/11/2006]. These grants were to be paid to the CPA, and land for settlement purposes. Those who were members be used for planning the settlement as well as assist in the of household that were victims of dispossession viewed establishment development projects. Munzhedzi as their own land and felt that they were returning home. They wished to rebuild the Munzhedzi Since the signing of the Settlement Agreement, community which the dispossession destroyed communication between the community and the RLCC when members of the community were scattered over the has broken down: ‘We write many letters to the RLCC and former Venda, and Lebowa homelands. Hence, no response is received from the office’ [Mushandana, the headman took the lead in re-establishing the settlement 22/06/2006]. By October 2006, five years after the signing with the initial occupation of the land [Mushandana, of the Settlement Agreement, no business plan has been 22/11/2005]. developed, no grants have been released to the CPA and even the title to the land has not been transferred to the According to Mr Nngobo [22/11/2004], some of the places CPA. The RLCC holds the community responsible for the where claimants lived, in and around Nthabalala, are hilly, delay. with poor soils and little rainfalls. Their former land at

5 Settlement Agreement entered into between Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs (Ms A.T. Didiza) and the Munzhedzi CPA, signed on 2 March 2002. 6 Settlement Agreement entered into between Minster of Agriculture and Land Affairs (Ms A.T. Didiza) and the Munzhedzi CPA, signed on 2 March 2002.

7 Claimants’ verification list compiled by claimants in 2001.

3 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Munzhedzi is fertile and closer to the places where people social amenities and is a safe place to stay. They wish to from the community work: see development of infrastructure and services such as In our previous resettlement area at Nthabalala, one could electricity, water, roads and streets, sports grounds, schools, hardly get a piece of land for production purposes, we clinics and shops [Malesa,10/12/2004]. Such infrastructural need this land in order to grow food, plough orchards have development had not yet taken place at the time of this grazing for our livestock [Phaswana, 20/11/2004]. research and no plans were it place to ensure it would sometime in the future. People living on the land did not We needed our land so that we can feel as persons of worth, have access to water, and had to collect it from the nearby full of dignity and have sense of ownership [Nngobo, township. The CPA attributes the failure of development to 22/11/2004]. the inability of the government agencies to provide services such as provision of water, housing or schools. At Nthabalala, Munzhedzi community members were always regarded as foreigners, and were granted little land Institutions of ownership and for settlement or for farming. They aspired to develop a administration residential area, with multiple land uses such as backyard gardens, orchards, ploughing fields and group farming At Munzhedzi, administration of land is handled by a projects.8 number of competing institutions, namely Headman Munzhedzi, Nthabalala Tribal Authority (under which the Spiritual factors, including unrestricted access to places headman falls) and the CPA as the would-be legal owner of where their ancestors are buried, were also included the land. The municipality may also play a role in approving among the reasons given by claimants for wanting to applications to establish business premises (e.g. a shop) on return to Munzhedzi. The need to conduct rituals on the the land. All these institutions have an undefined stake in land where their ancestors are buried is a critical aspect the administration of land at Munzhedzi; often these roles in the spirituality of the community. When headman T.J. are confused, resulting in a clash in terms of interests and Munzhedzi passed away in 2003, he was buried on the land approach. at Munzhedzi where his forefathers were buried. According to the chairperson of the CPA committee, Mr Mushandana, In 2002, Munzhedzi community registered a CPA with the 10 this was one of the main reasons the headman fought for DLA. The CPA was intended to become the legal owner of access to this land, because it was his wish that he should the acquired land, holding it on behalf of its members. The be buried there. institution of a CPA was chosen over a trust because it was seen as more participatory and democratic in nature and In addition, the people of Munzhedzi aspired to establishing allowed all members to be involved in decisions relating to income-generating projects, using grant funding from the the land. To date, however, no formal transfer of land to the DLA and other sources as proposed by the Settlement community has happened. Agreement. Projects such as a poultry farm, a piggery and a vegetable garden were the most popular within Munzhedzi undertook a process of drafting a constitution the community, while other members needed land to for its CPA with the assistance of Nkuzi Development plough maize and plant orchards. They also expected job Association (a local land rights NGO) and the Limpopo opportunities for community members from such projects. office of the RLCC. The main objective of the association, However, the lack of financial resources, poor community according to the constitution, is to hold and manage the land organisation, and ‘lack of interest from the government on acquired in terms of the community’s land claim. Secondary this settlement’ has dented their hope for development. objectives of the association include the acquisition of Only a small poultry and piggery are running so far, and further property, whether movable or immovable, for only a handful of people are participating.9 its members. The constitution emphasises the need for secure land tenure for all the members of the association. Generally, members of the Munzhedzi community aspire Ultimately, the CPA aims to address poverty, unemployment to building a community that has all the necessary and other socio-economic needs of its members.11

8 A resolution regarding land settlement options, document, dated 1 March 2001. 9 CPA focus group discussion report, dated 23 December 2005. 10 Munzhedzi CPA registration certificate. 11 Munzhedzi CPA constitution, adopted and signed on 22 December 2001.

4 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

An elected committee is supposed to run the affairs of Land acquisition and access Munzhedzi CPA, and was initially made up of eight members. As described above, some members of the Munzhedzi The CPA committee experienced lots of problems, especially community started occupying the claimed land prior to from the headman and his supporters who contested their settlement of the land claim. After occupation of the land, control of land. The headman did not recognise the CPA the RLCC intervened and awarded restitution land to the committee and often was in conflict with the chairperson Munzhedzi CPA through Section 42D of the Restitution of and other members over the use of a tractor and other Land Rights Act. The land was already owned by the state, equipment donated to the CPA. Disputes between members and therefore did not require a long process of negotiations were being referred to the local traditional council rather and purchase as would be the case with a private owner. than to the CPA committtee. As a result, the majority of Formal title to the land has not yet been transferred to the the members resigned from the CPA committee, and the CPA. According to Shilote [02/08/2006], the Munzhedzi headman appointed his own people to replace them. community occupied the land before the RLCC could Currently the ‘CPA committee’ comprises ten members, six facilitate a proper planning process. As a result, it is no men and four women. Some of the members also served longer a priority for the RLCC. on the previous committee, but some are new members residing at Munzhedzi. Two members of the committee are Individual households have accessed residential stands not on the verified list of ‘claimants’. and some have access to orchards and ploughing fields. During the initial stage of the settlement, the CPA secretary In 2003, after the passing away of Headman T.J. Munzhedzi, kept a list of applicants but later the secretary dropped out who lodged the land claim, his son S. Munzhedzi informally and the headman handled all the plot allocations himself. took over as headman. Some members of the community Most of the people who applied were landless people from regarded him as a self-imposed headman because no Nthabalala, Vleifontein township, Mulima and Muila and official ceremony was held to proclaim him as the leader those who needed access to land closer to towns and main of the community, and the Nthabalala tribal authority roads. was not consulted. When he took over from his late father, S. Munzhedzi declared that he alone would decide on all After the formal return of the land, a person who needed land allocations at Munzhedzi, and not the CPA. Members land to build a house first applied to the headman who of the CPA committee complained to the RLCC (Limpopo) then allocated him/her a plot, regardless of gender but about the behaviour of the new headman.12 As a result of considering their marital status and whether they have dependants or not. Although there was a committee of the headman actions, and the lack of response by state three, Headman T.J. Munzhedzi and two other people, officials, the majority of the CPA committee members the committee did not have any role to play unless there resigned [Mulaudzi, 23/12/2004]. were specific requests from the headman himself [Malesa, Chief Nthabalala has authority over communal land to the 10/12/2004; Tovhakale, 10/12/2004]. west of Munzhedzi, in the village known as Ha-Maila. Since Headman T.J. Munzhedzi used to keep records of people the return of land to the Munzhedzi people, residents of who are resident at Munzhedzi, indicating who lived on Ha-Maila, began to expand onto the Munzhedzi CPA land, the land, when and how much that person paid. Under leading to conflicts between the Munzhedzi community S. Munzhedzi, the Munzhedzi community has a record of and the Nthabalala Tribal Authority. Both the CPA committee land transactions, for example, a receipt book that was used and the headman were unhappy with the actions of the to record the names of people who became occupants Maila people. Interventions from the office of the RLCC did and paid money.14 Because of inconsistencies in recording, 13 not resolve these tensions. A meeting was called by the conflicts over land are common. For example, in 2003, two RLCC that informed the Nthabalala people that Diepgezit women were allocated the same piece of land – one was has been awarded to Munzhedzi CPA and that the CPA is the daughter of original land claimants and the other was a the legal owner of the land (even though no formal transfer landless woman who had not been part of the Munzhedzi of the land has yet been made), but no further steps were community but was in need of land for residential purposes taken to prevent interference with their land. [Shirhinda, 13/11/2006; Nngobo, 22/04/2004].

12 Letter from the current chairperson to RLCC titled ‘Invasion of our land Diepgezit by the chief’, dated 10 April 2003. 13 Letter from the CPA chairperson to Nkuzi titled ‘Problems encountered by Munzhedzi CPA’, dated 10 January 2005. 14 Poultry and piggery project members focus group report, dated 22 December 2004.

5 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

From the onset, people paid different amounts for access [Shilote, 02/08/2006]. According to the CPA committee, to land, depending on whether they were a descendant of delays in business planning and lack of information as to a victim of removal from Munzhedzi or not. ‘Beneficiaries’ what the RLCC was intending to do has also contributed to (i.e. members of the restitution claimant group) paid R120 the allocation of land for residential purposes. and non-beneficiaries R150. The prices for land access later increased to R220 for ‘beneficiaries’ and R320 for ‘non- With the support of Nkuzi Development Association, three beneficiaries’.15 agricultural projects have been established: a poultry project that is being run by seven women, a piggery project run by The plots allocated differ in size, for a range of reasons. The three men and a vegetable garden run by ten people (seven majority of those allocated for residential purposes are men and three women). These projects are run exclusively either 30m x 50m or 45m x 45m, with the exceptions being by the participants themselves with no involvement by the those where the occupier extended the plot during the CPA committee. The piggery project was established with early days of the occupation, and where land was allocated the support of Nkuzi, which bought materials to construct a for use other than for residence. In some cases, those who basic pigsty. In 2004, they built cages and arranged training could afford to pay the headman more money were given a at Madzivhandila College of Agriculture for the members. slightly larger plot. Some allocated plots are big enough to The project has since grown to 16 pigs and the members allow owners to build a house and plough a sizable garden. are expecting to start selling locally by the end of 2006. The Some people also have access to separate arable fields.16 project continues to be hampered, however, by a lack of water and electricity. People at Munzhedzi use the land in between the residential stands to graze their livestock. Some land that is hilly and not The poultry project started with 17 people, but as it suitable for ploughing or residential purposes is also used continued, with little or no return and no external support, for grazing purposes. Access to this land is not controlled, many people withdrew from the project. and is open to livestock from surrounding areas such as How can one spend much time on a project that does not Nthabalala, Vleifontein, Mpofu and Maila. Some members pay him/her at the end of the month? Those who left felt that they needed some income at the end of the month of the Munzhedzi community who have livestock are also and went to look for work somewhere else. But some left renting grazing land from the neighbouring community because they expected that money will just come without of Mavungeni (also a land reform project); for example, Ms hard work. I am still involved because I have nowhere to Mulaudzi owns 20 cattle and is grazing them on some of the go and I hope that someday someone will come to help us camps at Mavungeni acquired under the land redistribution [Ramalivhana, 16/09/2005]. programme. This [Munzhedzi] land is now fully occupied with no Nkuzi bought materials for the poultry project to begin provision for those of us who have pursued land claims with, including 300 chickens and some feed for the first in order to get land for cattle farming. I am now renting batch. Money from the sale of chickens is mainly put back grazing land from the nearby community because into the project. Members have continued to work on this Munzhedzi has become a residential area and it seems project, in the hope that some day the CPA will function to be the priority of the chief to allocate residential land properly and be able to get them the much support they without considering other uses such as grazing [Mulaudzi, need, and the government will at some stage release grants 29/12/2004]. that will ensure the improvement of the project [Kwinda, 06/06/2005; Mushandana, 06/12/2004]. Land use and livelihood activities

According to information put together by Nkuzi as an input Members of the community make extensive use of other to a business plan after the settlement of the land claim, natural resources they find on the land. Wild vegetables like the restored land was to be used mainly for residential mushidzhi (black jack) are used as a form of spinach. Other purposes, with gardens for small-scale cultivation (Nkuzi kinds of wild vegetable they gather are thebe (vowa), delele, 2002). No business plan was developed by the RLCC, and murudwe and nngu. There are also wild fruits such as matshili, the RLCC argues that this was because most of the land nwevhe and thungulu. These foods contribute significantly had already been settled before planning could be done to the diets of poorer households [Mulaudzi, 2004]:

15 CPA focus group report, dated 23 December 2004. 16 CPA focus group report, dated 23 December 2004.

6 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Here, I have land of my own and if I do not have money 02/08/2006]. The agreement states that the Commission to buy meat or vegetables, I can go outside and get myself is responsible for drawing in support for the Munzhedzi wild plants for vegetables. But the problem is that now CPA from the local municipality and other government the land is becoming fully occupied. It may not be easy to departments. move around and get good vegetables [Mulaudzi, 2004]. The Department of Land Affairs undertakes to release the planning grants and the restitution discretionary For housing purposes, people at Munzhedzi made use of grants due to this claim. The RLCC undertakes to assist musengele (a local timber) for poles and walls, mud bricks the claimant community to negotiate with the Makhado and thatch grass. Local Municipality, Northern Province Departments of This land is rich in everything you need. When I started Agriculture; Local Government and Housing … accessing living on this land I used mud bricks, poles from musengele all necessary development aid for the land.18 and got thatch grass from elsewhere. This helped me a lot because I did not have money to buy materials for building. According to the Settlement Agreement, the government The problem we had is water for construction of the house institutions responsible for support services at Munzhedzi [Tovhakale, 10/12/2004]. are thus RLCC (Limpopo), DLA, Makhado Municipality, LDA and the Department of Local Government and Housing. Community members reported that they now fear that veld fires may destroy these wild resources. In addition, The LDA has provided what they term ‘starter packs’ to all the uncoordinated occupation of land and overgrazing of land land restitution projects that were settled in the Makhado 17 pose a threat to these natural resources. area in 2002. The starter packs include a tractor, a plough and a trailer. This equipment was intended for use by the Many people at Munzhedzi work in Makhado and the nearby CPA and its members. The Munzhedzi CPA tractor is used by townships of Vleifontein and . Others work within community members to plough their gardens and backyard the local area doing construction work or as hawkers in the fields, and is also rented out to neighbouring communities surrounding villages and townships. There is considerable during the rainy season [Khorommbi, 22/04/2005]. Some of dependency on remittances from migrant workers, welfare the members complain that the tractor is not being used grants (mainly old age pensions and child support grants), for the benefit of the community at large, but is used mostly and small-scale farming (mainly in people’s yards). In the by friends of the headman, and money charged for the use rainy season most households (including those that have of the tractor does not serve the interest of the community, jobs in towns) hire the community tractor (see below) to since it is being kept and used by the headman and the plough their yards and they plant maize, beans, groundnuts, tractor driver. sweet potatoes and vegetables such as pumpkin and bean leaves. This is purely for household consumption [Tovhakale, The regional office of the Department of Agriculture 10/12/2004]. In fact, when one moves around in the rainy in Makhado has also placed an extension officer in the season, one observes that almost all the households are area to provide support to the new projects. In addition, ploughing maize and vegetables in their yard. They say that training has been provided for community members at they are able to obtain a sufficient harvest of three to four the Madzivhandila College of Agriculture in , 80-kg bags of maize meal, which is enough to feed a typical where members are trained in horticulture, broiler household for approximately four months without having production and pig production. The extension officer to buy from the shops. has tried to assist members to access grants under the Support institutions (government Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) of and non-government) the Department of Agriculture, but without success to date.

The state institution responsible for the Munzhedzi land Nkuzi Development Association also plays a role in claim and its settlement is the Commission for Restitution supporting land use initiatives at Munzhedzi, particularly of Land Rights, under the direction of the RLCC (Limpopo). in the vegetable garden, piggery and poultry projects. With Apart from the transfer of land to the community, the finance obtained from the National Development Agency, Commission is also responsible for post-settlement Nkuzi bought pipes and other implements for the vegetable support, as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement [Shilote, garden. A building for the piggery and poultry projects has

17 Poultry and piggery project members focus group report, dated 22 December 2004. 18 Settlement Agreement: Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs (Ms A.T. Didiza) and the Munzhedzi CPA, signed on 2 March 2002.

7 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

been built, but is very basic. According to Nkuzi, they could Development has been further affected by the absence of not fund more sophisticated sheds with the grant funding support from government. Faced with a divided community they received, and so they decided to start at a basic level. and a breakdown of communications, the office of the RLCC, the body formally responsible for post-settlement Munzhedzi, like many of the villages that surround it, is typical support at Munzhedzi, has effectively walked away from of rural areas in the former Bantustans. It is a spontaneous the community and left it to fend for itself. In summary, the settlement where the leadership has responded to the land failure of the state to support the CPA committee in dealing needs of people without following any plan or structure with other institutions, most notably the traditional leader, predetermined by the authorities. Although the settlement the Department of Agriculture and the local municipality, has responded to the needs of the people, poor internal has weakened the status of the CPA, rendering it non- organisation has weakened the landholding entity and it is functional, with the result that the promised development failing badly in terms of administration of community affairs. assistance has not materialised.

8 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

3. Mavungeni case study

Overview of the Mavungeni met at the farm of Cooksley (Lovedale Park) to mediate on community claim a dispute between Mphephu and Chief Sinthumule over this land (Nemudzivhadi 1985). According to P.F. Menné, a In the late 1800s, the Mavungeni people came from neighbouring farm owner, Vleifontein belonged to his great 19 and settled the land around Mulambunjele, grandfather, John Cooksley, and was at this time inhabited which they named Mavungeni. This equates roughly with largely by Shangaan speakers, who had accepted white the current property described as Vleifontein 310 LS. The domination and served as labour tenants.20 land is located in the Makhado Local Municipality, under the Vhembe District Municipality of Limpopo province. It is The inhabitants of this land, Shangaans and Vendas, situated 20 km south-east of Makhado town (also known continued to have land rights for ploughing and grazing as Louis Trichardt), along the Elim Road (R578) and is their livestock without any obstruction from the new approximately 8 km west of Elim. white owners until the 1913 Land Act was passed. Most of these people’s rights were reduced to that of labour Agriconcept (Pty) Ltd (2000) defines the terrain of the tenants or squatters on their land of birth. As a result some land in question as flat to undulating. The western part is started to leave the farm as early as the 1930s. A major characterised by a low rocky outcrop with a minor depression removal happened during 1968/9 when all people on the serving as a natural water course, causing some wetlands farms Vleifontein 310 LS were removed from the land and in the centre of this land. The land is further characterised scattered in the former Gazankulu and Venda, including by soils derived from the granite parent materials which the areas of Riverplaats, Mbhokota, Chavani, , are dominantly deeper red soils and which, according to Nthabalala and . These areas were overpopulated Agriconcept (Pty) Ltd (2000), are suitable for crop and tree and dry and most of the people who had been moved there production, including irrigation. Shortlands and Hutton soil did not have access to productive land because they were forms dominate this area. The natural vegetation occurring seen as foreigners. in this area falls within Acocks Veld Type No. 19, Sourish Mixed bushveld to the west and Acocks Veld Type No. 9, The Mavungeni land was bought by the state and was never Lowerveld Sour Bushveld to the east. It is an open veld with transferred to private hands but remained unused state land clumps of thorn trees and shrubs. owned by SADT for a long time, except Lovedale Park which remained in private hands until Keith Johnson sold it to the The climate for the area is mostly subtropical and minimum SLAG beneficiaries in 2002. Lovedale Park had long been temperatures seldom drop below zero, hence there is high used as a cattle ranch with minimal crop farming. The state development potential for subtropical fruit and frost- land remained largely unused, with some portions being sensitive crops during the winter months. Average rainfall leased to white farmers and others being used by people varies between 400 and 700 mm because the farm lies on from Vleifontein township. the escarpment where convection of the moist atmosphere results in rainfall somewhat higher than the surrounding In 1994, the attainment of democracy provided an areas above or below the monocline. Rain starts in early opportunity for the Mavungeni community to claim their summer and peaks in January (Agriconcept (Pty) Ltd lost land and heritage. According to Mr G. Chaucer, who 2000:3–6). served as the chairman of the land claims committee, ‘we heard that people whose land was taken unlawfully under In the late 1800s both Shangaan and Venda speakers lived the apartheid government could claim it back, and as a together in this area. The arrival of whites on this land from result we reorganised ourselves and submitted our land the 1880s dispossessed blacks without physically removing claim to the office of the Land Claims Commissioner in them from this land, as their status was reduced to that of Pretoria’ [Chauke, 01/08/2006]. Two separate claims were squatters and later labour tenants (Nkuzi 1999). In 1896, the lodged on behalf of the Mavungeni Tsonga community ZAR general, Cronje, and the leading Venda chief, Mphephu, and the Mavungeni community, on 16 August 1995 and

19 Mulambunjele is a perennial river that runs across the farm Vleifontein 310 LS. 20 Letter from P.F. Menne titled ‘Support of the claim by Mavungeni community’, dated 24 February 1996.

9 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

18 September, 1998 respectively. Both claimed rights to Table1. Mavungeni SLAG profile Vleifontein 310 LS as the traditional land of the Mavungeni people. These claims were later consolidated into one Beneficiaries 98 Households claim.21 The main objective for lodgement of the claim, Hectares 561.3880 according to Mr Maluleke [07/08/2006], was to acquire Women 38 their ancestral land so that they could access their ancestral Youth 40 graves, farm cash crops and orchards and gain access to land for residence and employment opportunities. measuring 561.388 ha in extent through SLAG. The deed of Around the same time, community members learned of the transfer indicates that it was bought on 16 November 2001, land redistribution programme and applied for a SLAG for and was transferred in full title to the Mavungeni CPA on land purchase. The application was pioneered by the three 26 April 2002.24 With the land came a fully equipped dairy, families, Maluleke, Chauke and Baloyi (all being part of the which consisted of four automatic ‘Milk Right’ machines with Mavungeni land claim) who applied to the DLA in 1998. They a cooling tank and a large cool room. The dairy has an office, proposed to purchase the farm Lovedale Park. Lovedale Park feed room, workers’ toilet, change room and engine room. is a name of the farm comprising three distinct portions of There are also holding pens, a crush pen, outbuildings, sheds Boschkopje and a portion of Vleifontein 310 LS. The portion and feed troughs. At the time of the purchase of the dairy of Vleifontein happened to fall outside the land claimed by it was fully operational. The land was already planted with Mavungeni; hence it was targeted for acquisition through 49 ha of kikuyu and ‘green gold’ pastures under irrigation to SLAG. ‘We heard that the government was buying farms be utilised by the dairy herd, 12 ha of eucalyptus plantation for the previously disadvantaged communities in order as well as 491 ha of natural grazing. There is also good water to start farming, therefore our families started registering supply for the camp (Agriconcept (Pty) Ltd 2000:31). names of people interested in order to apply for the grant to buy land because it was not clear if we were going to In 1999, the RLCC: Northern Province and Mpumalanga, get our claimed land soon’ [Chauke, 01/08/2006]. By the end which was then based in Pretoria, started with the of 1998, the Mavungeni community was involved in two investigation of the Mavungeni land claim, which included separate processes, a land claim handled by the office of the validation, gazetting, valuation, settlement options RLCC (Limpopo) and a SLAG application dealt with by the workshops and the drafting of a Settlement Agreement, Provincial Land Reform Office of DLA. which was concluded on 2 March 2001 when the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs signed the Settlement The SLAG application was approved on 31 March 1999 Agreement in full and final settlement of the Mavungeni [Chauke, 01/08/2006]. The processes unfolded with Community Land Claim. The settlement of the Mavungeni members of the community identifying the properties, land claim was achieved administratively whereby the negotiating purchase prices with the landowner, compiling Minister approved the settlement in terms of Section 42D a beneficiary list and registering a CPA for the SLAG farm. The of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The value of the same CPA was used for ownership of the restitution award farm was not established because it was state land and that followed.22 A total of 98 beneficiaries were registered so no purchase or compensation was required. However, under the SLAG project while under restitution another 200 conservative estimates of the value of the property are in members were added to the membership list. After some the region of R3.9 million. investigation, the Boschkopje portions were dropped from the application because of land claims lodged against those The Settlement Agreement stipulates that the community properties by other communities such as the Nthabalala must form a legal entity to hold the property on its behalf. Royal Council.23 It further ordered restoration of the remaining extent of the Vleifontein 310 LS, measuring 744.5 ha in extent, and A group of 98 people from Mavungeni community that the land be transferred to the legal entity on behalf eventually acquired Portion 1 of Vleifontein 310 LS, of the Mavungeni community. It further makes provision

21 Original land claim forms, dated 16 August1995 and 18 September 1998, submitted to the CRLR. 22 Only one CPA was registered for both restitution and SLAG projects, meaning that SLAG beneficiaries have benefits from both SLAG-awarded land and the restitution award. The SLAG beneficiaries can therefore be considered a sub-group of the restitution claimant community. 23 Resolution signed by Munzhedzi community and the Nthabalala Royal Family on 1 February 1999; Inspection in loco report: Vleifontein 310 LS, 27 July 1999, compiled by Shirhami Shirinda (Nkuzi). 24 Deed of Transfer executed at the Registrar of Deeds at Pretoria on 26 April 2002.

10 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

for financial compensation for the land on which the tractor, trailer, mould board plough, planter, disc plough Vleifontein cemetery is situated, and which was excluded and tiller. This equipment is now owned by the CPA. Nkuzi from the settlement. It further provides for an undertaking Development Association also assisted with purchasing from government to assist the new owners of the land with equipment, such as an irrigation system for a 10 ha food plot, development support, in terms of planning grants, and for materials for construction of a pigsty and poultry house, and the RLCC to negotiate with Makhado Local Municipality, training. The RLCC appointed a group of consultants called the LDA and the Department of Local Government and Wohimu Rural Development, based in Polokwane, to draw Housing in order to ensure that the CPA can access all up a business plan for the community. The business plan available grants to assist in land development (Mavungeni proposes a residential development and different kinds of Settlement Agreement 2001). farming enterprises such as broiler production, mango and macadamia orchards, food lots, livestock farming and dairy The land acquired was to be registered in the name of production [Maluleke, 07/08/2006]. the Mavungeni CPA, registered in 2002 as Mavungeni CPA/01/0323.25 Land acquisition and access

The Mavungeni community elected a committee of nine The Mavungeni people have acquired different portions people in terms of the provisions of the Mavungeni CPA of Vleifontein 310 LS: part of the remaining extent of constitution [Maluleke, 07/08/2006]. This committee meets Vleifontein 310 LS through restitution and Portion 1 every quarter unless special meetings are called. The through SLAG. Only Portion 1, which was acquired from a committee is currently divided on issues relating to the private owner under SLAG, has been transferred in title to use of resources belonging of the CPA, especially questions the Mavungeni CPA (Van Zyl Conveyancers 2002). Despite of land use and access. For example, some members of the restitution award, all of the restored land is still officially the committee want a township to be established next held by the SADT. The RLCC has indicated frustrations with to the road, while the other group wants it next to the regard to the transfer of land because of difficulties in terms existing township, because of the costs of putting in bulk of contestations of the boundaries, the long process of infrastructure and electricity if the township is located too planning and survey, and responsibility for development far from the existing township. projects [Shilote, 02/08/2006].

The restored land was previously used mainly for dry Without full legal ownership of the property the community land cultivation, with mango, avocadoes and macadamia feels that they are vulnerable, particularly to those people orchards, operated by a commercial farmer who had leased that object to their occupation of the land. They currently the land from government. Before the settlement of the face a challenge from neighbouring communities such as land claim, farmers resident in Vleifontein township had Vleifontein and Nthabalala: access to grazing and dry land cultivation on some parts of We know that the government has given this land to us, but this land. These people used the land without permission we do not have legal ownership. We need title so that we or secure rights to the land, but they still have a feeling of can have full and legal ownership of this land [Maluleke, entitlement to this land and some are antagonistic to the 07/08/2006]. Mavungeni people who now occupy it. On Portion 1 (acquired under SLAG), the CPA has agreed The land has four earthen dams and three equipped on cattle farming, dairy and broiler production. This land is boreholes that could provide irrigation for the orchards owned by the CPA on behalf of the SLAG beneficiaries, and is and food plots. Fencing on the land was old and it needed not available to all members of the Mavungeni community a lot of renovation. The community has started with some who will benefit under restitution. On the restored land farming enterprises such as poultry farming, dry land they plan to develop a residential development where cultivation and livestock farming at a small scale, and plan individuals would have exclusive access to residential to establish a township and improve the orchards (Focus Group Discussion 08/08/2006). land. In addition, food plots will be allocated for individual households for use under a lease arrangement agreed The LDA provided a ‘starter pack’ for the community to upon by CPA members. Some parts of the farm which have help them begin farming. The starter pack included a orchards would be worked as a collective.

25 Mavungeni CPA registration certificate in terms of CPA Act, 1996, dated 30 July 2001.

11 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Irrespective of the plans for land allocation mentioned the tenants’ own account. At this stage, however, no rent is above, their settlement is facing disputes around who being paid by the occupiers of the plots. has access to which piece of land, both from members of the CPA and outsiders who graze their livestock on the Separate from the CPA constitution and the business plan, land without permission. On Portion 1, the Mavungeni the committee has allocated land to some members of people cannot use the land because farmers from the the CPA based on their interest in farming. This allocation neighbouring Maila and Munzhedzi area have pushed their affected the remaining extent only (i.e the restored livestock onto the western part of the farm, and farmers land). These members were verified as members of the from Maila are cultivating portions of the land close to Mavungeni community during the land claim claimants their village. This problem is exacerbated by poor fencing verification process. In 2002/3, the committee allocated around the farm and lack of confidence on the part of the plots of between two and three hectares to approximately CPA in asserting themselves as owners of the land. On the 40 households from the claimant group. The chairperson is eastern side of the remaining extent of Vleifontein 310 LS, in possession of a list of people and what pieces of land they farmers from Vleifontein township have been ploughing were allowed to use [G. Chauke, 01/08/2006]. and grazing their livestock, claiming that the municipality had previously given them permission to use the land.26 A group of people who are disgruntled with the lack of Even after restitution of the land they continued to farm on consultation by the CPA committee on the allocation of that land claiming that they had not been consulted and land and with the general use of CPA resources, have moved that they had a right to use the land. onto the remaining extent of Vleifontein 310 LS to begin ploughing on plots that they demarcated themselves. The For the remaining extent, the CPA constitution makes monthly rental is also not acceptable to the group, as they provision for every member to have exclusive access to expect free access to the land. These people have allegedly residential land. However, the business plan has proposed moved onto the land after they heard that the land is going getting a developer to develop the area as a township, and to be leased to the neighbouring white farmer. ‘I could not sell developed and serviced housing sites to the members. just wait and see my land being used by another person The options put forward are that the CPA sells the land to who is not even part of our community, while I do not have the developer, or that the CPA and developer share the land to produce food for my family’ [Shirinda, 06/08/2006]. income from sales of the houses. This will not cater only for the restitution beneficiaries but also for non-members People who are unhappy with the CPA committee’s decisions interested in coming to live in the area (Wohimu 2005:38). asserted their position by moving onto the land, erecting It is difficult to see how the poor will benefit from the shacks and ploughing some of the areas in opposition to the proposed housing project, and how the rights of members proposals endorsed by the CPA committee. Access to this will differ from those of non-members. land has now become difficult for the CPA committee but they are still working to bring the situation under control. In terms of farming, members of the CPA will have access Some of the actions taken are to report those people to to communal grazing land and individual ploughing fields. the RLCC and the municipality. The CPA committee, the The CPA committee would oversee the allocation of such local municipality and the RLCC have also sought a court land to members of the Mavungeni community that appear interdict to remove these occupiers. Some of the occupiers on the beneficiaries list. If a person’s name does not appear feel insecure because of the threatened interdict, but so far on the list, that person has to prove that he or she was part they have not been removed and they continue to work the of the community at the time of removals or that his or her land. parents or grandparents were victims of forced removals (Mavungeni CPA constitution 18/03/2002). In 2005, a residential development plan was developed by Wohimu, a group of consultants appointed by the RLCC. The The business plan has proposed leasing the productive land layout has sites for approximately 200 residential stands, as food plots to the members, without granting them full school facilities, two church sites, business sites and social ownership. It stipulates that all members should apply to amenities. The committee has provided a copy of the plan the CPA for access to the production plots, and rent them to the local municipality for inclusion in its Integrated from the CPA for R100 per month. Production will be for Development Plan (IDP) for 2006/2007. So far no formal

26 A letter to the Makhado Municipal Manager titled ‘Destabilisation of the Mavungeni Area’, dated 28 October 2003.

12 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

resettlement has been started but the number of shacks skills required for this work, and are keen to receive further is growing in areas other than the one earmarked for the training in areas such as land rights administration and township. the development of rules and procedures for resource allocation. Members believe that such support should be Land ownership and institutional/ provided by the RLCC or DLA in order for the CPA to be organisational arrangement able to administer the newly acquired resources [Maluleke, 07/08/2006]. An assessment by the RLCC in 2001 identified The Mavungeni CPA was registered on 30 July 2001. It is run areas of support required for the CPA committee as book- by a committee of nine which meets on a quarterly basis as keeping, financial management and conflict resolution, provided for by its constitution. This committee is responsible but five years on these needs have not yet been addressed for both properties, i.e. SLAG and restitution awarded land. (RLCC 2001). The CPA thus remains weak and unable to deal The committee calls annual general meetings where the with conflicts within the community. This is a critical area committee gives a report about the affairs of the CPA. Such meetings have proved difficult because the majority of the of skills development, seeing that land has been given to members do not attend such meetings. Some of the people a group of people who have different aspirations, come argue that they are not informed of such meetings, yet the from different backgrounds and have not been living as a committee publicises such meeting over the radio and community for a long time – since the dispossession of the sends written invitations to all the village councils in the land [Baloyi, 08/08/2006]. area. In July 2005, the committee was reshuffled and a new chairperson and deputy took over [Chauke, 01/08/2006]. Land use and livelihoods activities However, since the new committee took over, the CPA has Members of the Mavungeni community express divergent experienced serious problems in terms of the cohesion views about how the land should be used. Some members, of the committee and the CPA in general, including non- particularly the members of the leadership who have attendance of office-holders at meetings. This is attributed livestock on the farm and have been involved in meetings to the fact that some members of the committee dominate with the neighbouring farmers and government, are keen the decision making and do not provide space for other to run the farm as a single entity on a commercial basis members of the CPA to have a say. except for the residential development. This group is in favour of a small group of community members running A critical issue raised by the CPA chairperson is the the farm and employing members of the community. On functionality of the CPA and the capacity within the CPA the other hand, there are people who prefer allocation of committee to administer the institution. The CPA as an plots to individual households for small-scale production institution is neglected by government because it is not (Focus Group Discussion 08/08/2006]. clear who should be providing institutional support to this institution. ‘We are expected to ensure that the project is The former group wants the farm to boost the local viable and sustainable but nobody comes to support us in economy, with the dairy supplying schools and Elim resolving conflicts within the group or to provide advice on hospital with milk as it used to do before the land was sold how these could be dealt with’ [Maluleke 07/08/2006]. In to the Mavungeni community. They also would like to see terms of Section 11(1) of the Communal Property Association money coming into the account of the CPA, through leasing Act 28 of 1996, any registered CPA must, at prescribed times, land to the neighbouring white farmer. They believe that furnish prescribed documents and information to the there is enough land to lease out and also graze their own Director-General of DLA in order to enable them to monitor dairy cattle. They also wish to enter into some kind of joint compliance with the provisions of the relevant constitution venture, or strategic partnership, with an external investor. and the Act. The CPA committee has, since its establishment, However, the community is divided on the issue of bringing not given any reports to the department despite being requested to prepare such documents. in strategic partners because their land is not highly developed. Some of the members of Mavungeni CPA aspire The CPA committee is supposed to deal with the allocation to residing on the land, with access to ploughing fields of of rights and benefits to the members of the CPA. This equal size and every one producing for the benefit of his or committee is also responsible for development of the land, her own household, and sharing the natural resources on both the SLAG and restitution properties. The Mavungeni that land. CPA committee is also involved in the management of funds accrued from rentals and other grants received. Yet The business plan developed for the Mavungeni SLAG the committee members feel that they lack the financial projects outlines the development objectives as follows:

13 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

To improve the quality of life and household income Some of the CPA members have brought livestock onto the of beneficiaries through the profitable utilisation of farm for grazing, with one member having approximately agricultural resources earmarked for this purpose. This 100 cattle on the land. The CPA committee has also leased could be done by means of entrepreneurial activities, job some grazing land to a farmer from the nearby township creation and profit sharing enterprises27 (Agriconcept of Vleifontein. This has proven difficult to control, however, (Pty) Ltd 2000:1). because numerous livestock from the Vleifontein township, Munzhedzi and Maila push fences down and graze on the The second business plan, for the restitution award, has the same land. following aims: To create a sustainable project which creates job On the remaining extent of Vleifontein 310 LS, land use has opportunities and wealth for its beneficiaries; the been dominated by the demand for individualised access secondary aim is to provide resettlement opportunities and use of land for the benefit of individual farmers and for those beneficiaries who are able to afford relocation households. In 2002/3, some people started production (Wohimu Rural Development 2005:6). on the plots that had been allocated to people from the claimant group: ‘I was allocated three hectares of land. I The objectives of the SLAG project emphasise that land will planted maize in the initial year and was able to produce 30 be used for agricultural purposes. The second business plan x 80 kg bags of maize meal’ [Chauke, 01/08/2006]. According captures ideas of sustainability, job creation and provision to the chairperson of the CPA most of the people had a of settlement opportunities. similar kind of harvest. ‘What I harvested was used at home for consumption and a few bags were sold in the villages In 2002, the Mavungeni CPA bought eight dairy cows using and surrounding areas’ [Chauke, 01/08/2006]. Mealies are money from the SLAG grant that was left over after they sent to a small grinding mill in the nearby village of Chavani, had purchased land and some equipment. Unfortunately and some were exchanged at the large commercial millers most of the cows died before the project could start any in Makhado for bags of maize meal. In 2004/5, some of production of milk. By the end of 2006 only three dairy cows the farmers planted maize again, but experienced severe remained. The dairy has not begun running due to absence problems from livestock on the land, which destroyed the of an electricity connection, the death of dairy cows and the crop. As a result, in 2005/6, very few people ploughed. Cattle lack of dairy skills within the CPA. SLAG beneficiaries also come mainly from neighbouring villages, but one member attempted broiler production on the SLAG farm. In 2003, of the CPA was also grazing livestock on the fields where they constructed poultry houses and an office using some people were cultivating. One of the neighbouring farmers of the money that remained after they had bought the has even built a cattle kraal on the land. Such grazing appears dairy cows. With additional grant funding from the National to be uncontrolled, and undermines the stated intention of Development Agency, obtained via Nkuzi Development the CPA to use this land exclusively for cultivation, and to Association, they bought 300 chicks and feed, in order to allow grazing only on Portion 1 [Chauke, 01/08/2006]. start a broiler production. This project has been running to date with a staff complement of five. The macadamia and avocado orchards which were Attempts to start a piggery and vegetable garden have already established on the land prior to its transfer to the stalled due to the absence of equipment and infrastructure community have not been maintained and as a result have such as irrigation, electricity for pumping water, cages and yielded a very poor harvest. A neighbouring white farmer fencing. Those members interested in the piggery project helped by shelling the macadamia nuts, packing them and could not start building cages for the pigs because they were transporting them to market, but the nuts were found to advised that a piggery next to the poultry project could be be of poor quality and could not be sold. They were sold detrimental to the chicks. On the other hand, the vegetable instead at a local informal market and made R18,000. Some garden has come to a halt because the infrastructure bought of this income was used to subsidise the poultry project. In was of poor quality; the diesel pump supplied was small the following years the CPA leased the orchard to a member and could not pump water to the reservoir. However, the of the community who paid R3,000 per month to the CPA in pumps that are there and which were used by the previous rent. The returns from the orchards have been used to run owners require electricity. They cannot be used without an the CPA affairs and also to support the broiler production electricity connection [Kwinda, 12/10/2005]. on Portion 1 of Vleifontein 310 LS [Maluleke, 07/08/2006].

27 Mavungeni business plan, First draft, February 2000. Drawn up by Agriconcept (Pty) Ltd.

14 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Activities on the land include efforts to start tourism use by the CPA and its members in order to start farming development. This initiative has not really taken off, yet the operations on those farms acquired. The tractor is used to people speak of it as a potential project that could assist plough the dry lands for individual households who have craftsmen and bead-making women in the village. The access to the field, and to carry firewood for the poultry committee has established contacts with an entity called project which has no electricity and depends on firewood the Zoutpansberg Skirmishes Routes (ZSR), which organises for heating. The tractor is also rented out to neighbouring tours of battle sites of the Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902). ZSR communities such as Munzhedzi and Ximange when they is particularly interested in the war memorial that exists need it, and the income is deposited in the CPA account on the land awarded to the community. In May 2006, the to assist in running the affairs of the CPA [Khorommbi, ZSR had a function to unveil the monument in honour of 22/04/2005]. civilians who were killed during the military operations The regional office of the Department of Agriculture during the Anglo-Boer War. Members of the community feel in Makhado has also placed an extension officer in the that this provides an opportunity for the development of area to provide support to the new projects. In addition, tourism initiatives which in turn could generate income for training has been provided for community members at the community. the Madzivhandila College of Agriculture in Thohoyandou, Provision of support services, where members are trained in horticulture, broiler production and pig production. The extension officer has by governmental and non- tried to assist members to access grants under CASP of the governmental organisations Department of Agriculture, but without success to date The state institution responsible for the Mavungeni land [Khorommbi, 22/04/2005]. claim and its settlement (e.g. the remaining extent of Vleifontein 310 LS) is the Commission for Restitution of Nkuzi Development Association has assisted the community Land Rights, under the direction of the RLCC (Limpopo). For during the lodgement of the land claim and has continued to play a support role in farming initiatives at Mavungeni. Portion 1 of Vleifontein 310 LS, the Provincial Land Reform However, most of its efforts have failed due to problems Office of the DLA has the leading role. However, the PLRO with the supply of materials and infrastructure [Kwinda, does not extend its responsibilities to post-settlement 12/10/2005]. support (even on land acquired under its redistribution programme), leaving this aspect to the Provincial Members of the community feel that support they receive Department of Agriculture. The RLCC for Limpopo has from state institutions in particular is far from adequate. formed a Settlement Support and Development Unit to For example, there is inadequate extension support, ensure that beneficiaries of restitution are supported to infrastructural development has not been carried out and use their restored land effectively [Shilote, 02/08/2006]. the CPA does not have financial resources to acquire such The Settlement Agreement obligates the DLA (through the infrastructure. Capacity building for the CPA has been RLCC) to support the Mavungeni CPA in terms of accessing neglected, even by the department that helped formed the grants and obtaining help from the local municipality or any CPA [Maluleke, 07/08/2006]. other departments that might have grants or other forms of support to offer: In summary, the Mavungeni community has obtained a The Department of Land Affairs undertakes to release the substantial portion of reasonable quality land through a planning grants and the restitution discretionary grants combination of restitution and redistribution, which should due to this claim. The RLCC undertakes to assist the claimant be providing numerous livelihood opportunities for its community to negotiate with the Makhado Municipality, members. A lack of planning, however, together with weak Northern Province Departments of Agriculture; Local organisational skills on the part of the CPA committee and Government and Housing … accessing all necessary a lack of coordination among state agencies means that development aid for the land.28 little productive use is yet being made of the land. Support is required for building the capacity of the CPA committee As at Munzhedzi and Ximange (below), the LDA has awarded and to provide the technical skills and other resources what they term ‘starter packs’ to Mavungeni CPA, including necessary to develop the housing and various productive a tractor, a plough and a trailer. These were intended for activities that the community has identified.

28 Settlement Agreement: Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs (Ms A.T. Didiza) and the Mavungeni CPA, signed on 2 March 2002.

15 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

4. Ximange case study

The Ximange clan originated in Mozambique, where a chief without any form of compensation. The majority, who were called Nkukwana left Xihaheni district and trekked with his Shangaan speakers, scattered all over the newly established people to the area which they called Vudyodyodyo and Gazankulu. Some Venda speakers went to nearby areas such was later registered as Syferfontiein 85 LT and Uitschot 84 as Nthabalala in the former Venda homeland. Subsequent LT. In 1850, a son was born to Nkukwana and was named to the removals, in 1976, the farm was purchased by the Ximange, who eventually took over the leadership of the SADT to add to Venda homeland, but it remained unused clan. In the 1890s, Syferfontein was obtained by its first white for a long time (Nkuzi 1999). owner, Veldkornet Tom Kelly. The land remained in Kelly’s family until 1916 when it was sold to Rev. N. Jacques; in 1969 As early as the 1980s, under the leadership of Chief the Jacques family sold the farm to a certain Mr Henning. Xitlhangoma Baloyi, the Ximange clan formed the Ximange The farm was used for cattle and maize production and a Reconstruction and Development Committee in order to mission school was also operated from this farm. The mission reclaim their lost land. The dawn of the new democratic was known as Ephrata, and even today most people know government and the enactment of the Restitution of Land the land as Ephrata rather than Vudyodyodyo. This land is Rights Act of 1994, provided an opportunity for the Ximange situated 20 km south-east of Makhado town (formerly Louis people and other victims of land dispossession to register a Trichardt) and 13 km south-west of Elim and south of the land claim. On 27 December 1995, Mr Risenga Freddy Baloyi, Vleifontein township. on behalf of the clan, lodged a land claim. Members of the committee insist that their intention was to claim the entire Topography of the area can be described as broken foothills Vudyodyodyo, i.e. Syferfontein 85 LT and Uitschot 84 LT, and and undulating. It lies between an altitude of 805 m and some members of the community also say they should 1074 m (Northplan 2004). The farms contain numerous have claimed the neighbouring land of Zwartfontien 392 springs and an area of natural sponge, part of the Letaba LS. However, the land claim form recognised by the office Catchments area. The area is frost-free, with average of the RLCC (Limpopo) indicates that a claim was lodged on minimum temperatures of 8ºC and maximums of 31ºC. It is Syferfontein 85 LT only.29 a summer rainfall area (October– March) with mean annual precipitation of 612 mm. Geology is largely Goudplaats Between 1995 and 2000, the office of the RLCC for Mpumalanga Gneiss; soils in parts are deep and fertile: and Northern Province, and later the restructured RLCC for The soils in the majority of the farm are soils with minimal Limpopo, investigated the claim and found it prima facia development, usually shallow on hard weathered rock, valid. A lengthy process followed, including gathering of with or without intermittent diverse soils. Lime is rare or histories, proving lost land rights, researching validation, absent in the landscape. Depths are between 450 and 750 negotiations and settlement options, forming of a CPA, mm on average. In the valley the deeper soils are found and finally signing of a Settlement Agreement. The CPA (Northplan 2004:9–12). was formed by a meeting of beneficiaries with assistance of a local land rights NGO, Nkuzi. The committee comprised The Ximange people were not immediately removed from five executive members and four additional members, all their land when the whites arrived on the land, but continued from the Ximange community. On 2 March 2001, at the living on the land with unrestricted access to ploughing first ‘interested party’ meeting, the Ximange community fields, grazing, water and other natural resources. From presented a proposal in which they indicated that only the 1936, the residents of the farm were subjected to forced restoration of their lost land rights would satisfy them.30 labour of three to nine months in exchange for permission to live on the farm, in line with the then government’s As the land belonged to the state, and was not contested by policy of labour tenancy. Those who refused to work were any party, this claim was settled through an administrative ordered to leave those farms. Between 1957 (when the first process whereby by the Minister approved the settlement trek passes were issued) to 1972 the Ximange community according to Section 42D of the Act, restoring the farm was forcibly removed from Syferfontein and Uitschot, Syferfontein 85 LT, measuring 718,87 hectares in extent,

29 Letter from RLCC, Ms Gilfillan, dated 22 July 99; Original land claim form, dated 27 December 1995. 30 Signed settlement options resolution, 1 March 2001.

16 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

to the Ximange clan, as represented by the Ximange CPA. various outbuildings and the remnants of a cattle dip, However, the settlement left out the farms Uitschot and holding pens, a dam, a small plantation and a pump room. Zwartfontein, which remains a matter of dispute between All of the above are old and some cannot be used at this the community and the RLCC [Baloyi, 2/11/2005]. The stage. They need more investment in terms of renovations settlement of the claim was marked by a celebration held and putting up new infrastructure. There is also a fence- at the Vleifontein Stadium on 2 March 2002, which also cut line from the north to the south and a gravel entrance involved the communities of Mavungeni and Munzhedzi, road to the old houses. Seven streams flow through the who also had their land restored to them at this time (see area, from natural springs, which are tributaries of the Klein above). The ceremony officially marked the final settlement Letaba River. The original farmhouse, dating from the 1880s, of the claim, despite the ongoing dispute over Uitschot and was supplemented by a second adjacent house built in the Zwartfontein. 1930s, both of which remain in reasonable condition but cannot be used without further renovations (Northplan The Settlement Agreement describes how much land was 2004:25). Following its purchase by the SADT, the farm being restored to the Ximange community, how the land fell into disuse and the area became greatly overgrown. will be owned and the development support that the The land was reportedly used by people from Vleifontein government and its agents will provide. This agreement township to graze their cattle and for ploughing. Prior to was signed between the Ximange CPA and the Minister for the return of the land, the Department of Water Affairs also Agriculture and Land Affairs, on behalf of the state. With used the house as a depot for their staff and equipment to regard to development assistance, the agreement promises service the area [Marimi, 28/04/2005]. the release of planning grants to the CPA, and that the RLCC will negotiate with Makhado Local Municipality, the LDA Although the formal processes for settlement of the claim and the Department of Local Government and Housing to to Syferfontein were finalised in 2002, the Ximange CPA support the CPA in accessing all necessary grants available has not received title deeds for that property. The land 31 in order to assist in land development. The agreement is still registered in the name of the SADT. The RLCC has provides that DLA will release Restitution Discretionary emphasised that there is a need to get all the planning work Grants and Settlement Planning Grants to assist the finished to ensure that beneficiaries use the land accordingly Ximange community to develop their property, but the total prior to the release of title deeds. However, planning work is value of such grants is not specified. It was only later when currently at a halt because of internal problems in the CPA. the RLCC commissioned consultants for the development Officials from the RLCC claim that they are frustrated by the of the land use and development plan (LUDP) that the CPA committee – largely based in Gauteng – because it is grants were estimated. The LUDP report stated that there difficult to work at a distance on a daily basis. The distant are 250 households and 700 beneficiaries for Ximange and leadership of the CPA has a tense relationship with the therefore estimated that Ximange is entitled to R1,008,000 community members, who are currently involved in farming in Settlement Planning Grants and R875,000 in Restitution on the land on a daily basis (see below). Discretionary Grants. There is much confusion around the adjoining farm, Land acquisition and access Uitschot. Members of the CPA insist that their claim was for The RLCC officially returned Syferfontein to the Ximange the whole property, which they knew as Vudyodyodyo or CPA. But members of the community whose rights were Ephrata. When owned by white people, these properties attached to Uitschot also returned to their land because were owned and operated as one. Members of Ximange they thought that their land was returned as well. To them community reported that they were unaware that, in Ephrata has always been one land and was not divided terms of the deeds registry, these were in fact two separate [Mdhuli, 02/11/2005]. Therefore Ximange has categories properties [Vukeya, 02/11/2005]. This matter was raised by of beneficiaries of land reform: those who officially were the Ximange Land Claims Committee in 2001 when they awarded the land by government and those who have became aware of the problem during the settlement of the returned to what they knew was part of Ephrata regardless claim. Some committee members interviewed claim that of the dispute regarding the settlement of the land claim. the RLCC ignored their complaint and proceeded to settle a claim on Syferfontein only on the basis that this was the only The land that was restored was state land, and had not property mentioned on the official claim form submitted to been in use. Features on the land restored are a graveyard, the RLCC, and the RLCC could not amend a claim.

31 Settlement Agreement entered into between the Shimange CPA and the Minster of Agriculture and Land Affairs (Ms A.T. Didiza), signed on 2 March 2002.

17 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Following the handover ceremony in March 2002, a reasons of attachment to the land, have come to stay sub-group of the Ximange CPA, comprising a group of on the land, and some people who are unemployed closely-related families, the Vukeya, Mdhuli and Baloyi and for lack of financial resources are not ploughing families moved on to the farm Uitschot, on the basis that any fields. this was the area originally occupied by these particular • Three households who commute to the farm for families. Although this has not been formally approved work and/or employ others to work on the farm. This by the Ximange CPA, the move appears to have their tacit category comprises people who have other formal agreement, as other members have not opposed it and, in employment and do not reside full-time on the practice, seem interested only in Syferfontein. The tenure farm but have ploughing fields on which they have status of the people residing and farming on Uitschot is far employed people to work, and may occasionally come from clear. Officially, this is state-owned land, on which there and stay on the farm. is no official restitution claim, and the occupiers are present on the land without any official approval. It would appear, The question of land access by individuals is a critical issue however, that the state has little knowledge of, or interest in, because the LUDP calls for a unitary farm, managed along this property. The CPA committee has tried liaising with the commercial lines, and this is supported by the official CPA RLCC in order to get the land transferred to the CPA but, as committee. However, those currently living and working no claim has been lodged for that land, the RLCC argues that on the farm have continued to farm on an individual basis it lies outside its area of responsibility. and not collectively through the CPA. They de-bushed approximately 10 ha and allocated fields of between 0.5 In the initial stages, immediately after the settlement of the ha to 4 ha to eight households for crop farming [Marimi, land claim, the local committee allocated some residential 24/05/2006]. The eight farmers, or their employees, work land to people who wanted to live on the farm. From these, on the farm on an almost daily basis. Most of them have three shacks were constructed on the allocated residential resources to enable them to get the necessary inputs for land. However, these shacks have not been occupied. In their plots. For example, some of the people are teachers or 2003, the members demarcated 22 cultivation fields of retired workers with pensions. approximately one hectare each around the main farmhouse at Syferfontein for access by individual households. This The adjoining farm of Uitschot was not restored to the initiative did not involve the local municipality or any other Ximange CPA, but has been occupied by members of the government authority, but was a spontaneous action by community. By October 2005 there were eight farmers members of the CPA. This initiative was done contrary to involved in farming. These farmers are all related; they are the official position adopted with the main committee, members of the extended Vukeya family. Mr Vukeya, as whose position is in line with the land use and development the elder of the family, apparently assumed responsibility plan which advocates for a unitary farm plan. Individual for coordinating access to this piece of land. Allocation of households who were allocated plots tried to plough in individual fields has been linked to the reconstruction of the first year but a poor harvest and destruction of crops by the previous settlement of the Vukeya family at Ximange. livestock from adjoining villages discouraged most of the Most of the plots allocated to members of this group of the farmers from ploughing again. Most of these people are no clan are around the areas where they used to live before longer involved in farming and have moved back to their land dispossession. ‘We are returning to our ancestors’ ruins, original homes (Focus Group Discussion 16/10/2006). this is the rebuilding of the Vukeya settlement at Ximange’ [Vukela, 02/11/2005]. The occupation of this land by the Currently 13 households are involved in some form of extended Vukeya family does not appear to be opposed activity at Syferfontein, in the absence of any clear plan for by the members of Ximange community who have taken the CPA as a whole. Some of these people have occupied occupation of Syferfontein, or by the state, which still the old farmhouses and some have constructed shacks officially owns this land. dwellings. This group can be described as follows (Focus Group Discussion 16/10/2006): On Uitschot, access to land is determined by how much • Five households who live and work full-time on the an individual can clear and work. Mr Vukeya oversees the farm This includes those cultivating crops on a small allocation of land, and it is up to the person to de-bush scale and those farming poultry in the sheds adjoining as much of it as they can. Most of the people on this land the main house. employ other people from the local area, as well as some • Five households who live on the farm but do not work Zimbabwean immigrants, to assist in the de-bushing of the land. This category includes pensioners who, for the land. So far no disputes have been reported over land

18 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

allocation, and the set boundaries seem to be respected by which is dealt with in detail below, is a long list of options all. ‘In this land all people know each other and where they for land use, but is lacking in concrete proposals and clearly are supposed to work’ [Mdhuli, 02/11/2005]. does not constitute a business plan. In fact, it suggests that the community must develop more specific business plans Claimants’ land needs and for the farm. The LUDP emphasises that the farm cannot aspirations be used as a township but must rather be used purely as a commercial farm: ‘No urban settlement is going to take The main interest of the Ximange community in claiming place and the farm will be operated as a commercial farm’ their land was to rebuild the sense of community that was (Northplan 2004:9). No effort has been made to implement destroyed through the implementation of the apartheid the vision contained in the LUDP and the interview with policies and to return to their ancestral land. They hoped community members reveals little or no support for the that the return of the land would lead to job opportunities commercial farming model it proposes. This raises serious and boost the local economy. questions about the nature of the consultation process and A closer look at Ximange reveals that there the community the relevance of this plan to the needs and aspirations of is divided around their vision for the land. On one hand community members. is a desire to engage in commercial farming, held by professionals and business people who have full-time Institutions of land ownership and employment. These people, who effectively control the administration CPA committee, support the running of the farm as a After a series of meetings to discuss which legal entity was single entity, under a central management, and oppose most suitable for the community, the Ximange community allocation of land to individuals for either productive or chose a CPA over a Trust because it was easier to set up and residential purposes. Another view is held by the poor and requires democratic processes, accountability, transparency locally-based unemployed people who are able to visit the and equality of membership. Supported by the RLCC and farm daily or stay there. These people need access to land local land rights NGO, Nkuzi, the community undertook a on an individual basis in order to produce crops for their process of drafting a constitution for the CPA. As a result, a households and possibly a small surplus for sale on the local Ximange CPA was registered on 10 May 2002 (registration market. These people reported that they were not willing number: CPA/02/0427/A). While one constitution was to wait indefinitely for the government to release grants developed by this consultative processes involving the and put in infrastructure. They took it upon themselves to RLCC, community members and an NGO, and used for the start using the land with the minimal support they received registration of the CPA, a second version was developed from Nkuzi Development Association and other inputs at a later stage by the ‘main’ committee in the months that from remittances and pensions (Focus Group Discussion 16/10/2006). followed (i.e. April 2002). The second constitution differs from the original one in the sense that it makes provision A needs assessment exercise by Nkuzi in 2002 revealed for traditional leadership to play a role in the affairs of the a demand for the creation of a residential area of CPA. It specifically mentions that the traditional head of approximately 70 ha, a business area of about 10 ha, and the community, the ‘President-Chief Designate’, will be the provision of land for different forms of farming, i.e. livestock, ‘president’ of the committee.32 game, horticulture and crop farming, for both growing food and generating a cash income (Nkuzi 2002). This exercise The CPA has 414 members in terms of a list of verified revealed that the intention of this community was to live members drawn up by the RLCC. These members are on the land as they used to do before the land was taken victims of land dispossession at Ephrata and/or their direct from them. They aspired to farm and secure food from their descendants who were over the age of 18 years at the time of fields to supply their families with food, to ensure creation verification. The constitution also provides that anyone who of job opportunities through farming and also to grow food in the future can prove that they too have land rights may commercially when possible. be added as a member (Ximange CPA Constitution 2001). In the initial stage, the CPA committee comprised twelve In 2004, the RLCC appointed consultants, Northplan, to members, with five portfolio-holders. Of the executive, only prepare an LUDP for the Ximange community. The plan, two are based in Limpopo, the remaining three are based in

32 Two CPA constitutions, dated 22 December 2001 and 27 April 2002.

19 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Gauteng and other provinces of . Of the ones in Members of the Ximange CPA are frustrated because their Limpopo, one is based in Giyani, about 70 km from the farm, leadership structure is not functional and is not in the and sometimes stays on the farm. The committee comprises area to meet people and explain to them the delays in the mainly urban-based professionals and full-time business release of grants and other promised developments such people. As a result, the daily running of the CPA affairs has as water and electricity. They are also frustrated because suffered neglect because members have other business the government is not communicating with them either. that keeps them away from Ximange. The office of the RLCC also says they are frustrated by the divisions within the community. The people on Uitschot In response to the desire for some development on the feel that their need for secure land access has not been met farm, a sub-committee, known as the ‘local committee’, was because they do not have any formal agreement to use the constituted in 2004 in order to assist in the management of land. However, they keep working the land in the hope that day-to-day responsibilities of the CPA on the farm, but this it will ultimately be transferred to them. committee does not have the power to take decisions. The committee comprised five CPA members resident on the Land use and livelihoods activities farm and in the surrounding areas, e.g. Elim. The relationship At the time that the community moved onto Syferfontein between this subcommittee and the main CPA committee and Uitschot, these farms were unused state land which had (the so-called ‘Jo’burg committee’) remains unclear, and is been neglected for a long time. On acquisition, the Ximange sometimes tense. Members reported that they feel they do people started to resettle a few households in the two not have powers to take decisions without the agreement existing farmhouses to look after the property and guard of the main CPA committee. This committe seldom meets. against theft and vandalism. Those people who moved Although the CPA committee deputy chairperson resides onto the land to look after the property and some who in Giyani, he also reported that he feels powerless and is were interested in farming started cultivating arable land not in a position to take decisions about the running of the around the farmhouses. Fencing is in a poor state and, as a projects, including meeting the RLCC to request the release result, their crops were destroyed by stray livestock from the of development support grants or the allocation of further neighbouring settlements of Vleifontein and Nthabalala. residential sites. Fences were also allegedly cut by people from the nearby Initiatives to allocate fields and allow more people to farm township because they are now restricted from grazing and with livestock and have orchards have been discouraged ploughing land that they have been using without permission by the main committee, because of its vision to run the for many years. The cutting of the fence was regarded as a farm commercially as a single entity. The subcommittee sign that people in the neighbouring communities are not (local committee) has recently not been meeting regularly happy with the resettlement of the Ximange community on because: this land (Focus Group Discussion 16/10/2006). At the same When we try to organise meetings to discuss how we can time, some people moved onto Uitschot to start building access services to ensure that the farm is fully operational, houses and de-bushing in preparation for ploughing fields the main committee instructs the local committee to wait and establishing of orchards. for the main committee whose majority are in Gauteng, Most of the members of the community that had started that they will contact the RLCC and the Department of Land Affairs. So we are always waiting for the committee farming on dry land were discouraged by the livestock to contact the RLCC but they have not made any progress’ damage. They say that they will plough again only when (Focus Group Discussion 16/10/2006). proper fencing is in place [Marimi, 24/05/2006]. They expect that the government to grant them funding to erect such In terms of the constitution, the CPA is supposed to meet fencing. Another limitation that they face was that the regularly, hold AGMs and carry out other activities, but none tractor belonging to the CPA (provided by the Department of this has happened in five years. The Communal Property of Agriculture) broke down and nobody could afford to Association Act does provide for monitoring of CPAs, and for repair it. Most of the people who came to live or work on the interventions by the Director-General of Land Affairs where land at the beginning have now given up and some are no necessary, but no action of this sort has been initiated so far. longer involved in the farm. Only a few continued to develop Most importantly, the RLCC has made no effort to date to small irrigated plots. However, the farmers on Uitschot are intervene to revive the CPA, to protect the interests of the continuing to farm regardless of the absence of support members, or to compel it to meet its obligations in terms from government and insecurity of tenure on the land they of the law. are working on. They have constructed four substantial

20 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

houses, and cleared and fenced an area of approximately as good arable land. Area C was further divided into 20 ha which is being used for cultivation of rain-fed crops 49 ha of crops, 11 ha of intensive livestock, 25 ha of such as maize, sweet potatoes and groundnuts. horticulture and 25 ha of mixed use.

As part of the Settlement Agreement signed between the The report concludes that the farm is suitable mainly for community and the state, the community is required to dry land farming, deciduous fruit and cattle and game prepare a business plan, for which the state will provide farming. It proposes that the Ximange CPA must ‘prepare funding. An outline business plan prepared in March a business plan for the renovation and use of the existing 2002 included plans for resettlement and agricultural building structures on the farm; apply to the municipality development, including the following elements: construction for the provision of electricity; and prepare an agricultural of access roads, water reticulation, fencing, electrification, business plan for each of the proposed agricultural activities …’ (Northplan 2004:10). No such business plan has been agricultural projects – tropical fruit production, vines, cattle developed as yet, although members of the community and ranching, dairy, chicken rearing, piggery – refurbishment officials of the RLCC refer to the LUDP as a business plan. of farm buildings, de-bushing, latrines. The plan estimated that a budget of R9.35 million was needed to get the farm Productive activities on Syferfontein to date have been 33 running again. No steps have yet been taken to implement influenced by the immediate needs and very limited this plan. resources of local people who can access the land, rather than by the elaborate, yet vague, proposals of the LUDP. In 2004, the RLCC appointed Northplan, a town and regional With the support of Nkuzi Development Association, one planning consultant, to develop an LUDP for the Ximange household (husband and wife) is producing broilers in a new 34 community. The LUDP report consists of a status quo purpose-built shed; eight households are cultivating small report on the land acquired by the community and lists irrigated vegetable plots and one household has brought possible projects that could be initiated. According to in livestock for grazing. Nkuzi also provided the occupiers the plan documents, it was adopted by the community with 100 macadamia trees which later died because of lack on 24 November 2004, although the accompanying of water. attendance list shows that only eight members of the community were in attendance. This plan proposes a Sipho Baloyi and his wife run the poultry business for their unitary commercial farm model, and discourages human own benefit, without the involvement of other members settlement on the land: ‘No urban settlement is going to of the CPA. Sipho was trained in broiler production by take place and the farm will be operated as a commercial consultants hired by Nkuzi as part of its livelihood support farm’ (Northplan 2004:9). It is based on the assumption that work. He was also trained in crop production at the all Ximange people want to run the farm as a commercial Madzivhandila College of Agriculture, with funding from agricultural enterprise without accommodating the need the Department of Agriculture. to resettle and rebuild the community. The LUDP makes no Poultry production was started as a group activity for reference to the existing skills or resources of the Ximange the CPA, with 300 chickens, a poultry house and other community, how the farm will be managed (or by whom), provisions provided by Nkuzi. Members received training nor how a single commercial farming operation can meet from a consultant appointed by Nkuzi. However, the people the needs of over 250 households. who were to be employed did not continue with the project because they discovered they would not be paid for the The LUDP only focused on the restored property of time spent on the project, and would only be entitled to a Syferfontein, which it divides into three sections, as follows: share of the profits. The CPA then allowed Sipho to control • Area A of approximately 150 ha which could be used the business because he was trained in poultry and in the for biodiversity and water preservation. hope that he would grow it and employ more people from • Area B of approximately 459 ha which could be used the Ximange community. The operation is still very basic as for grazing. It further states that both A & B can be used there is neither electricity nor water supply to the poultry for cattle and/or game farming and could support 100 house. Water has to be purchased in Vleifontein township cattle at 5 ha/LSU [Large Stock Unit] on Area B. for R1.00 per 25 litre container and transported to the farm • Area C of approximately 110 ha, which is regarded by bakkie.

33 This is a version of a draft business plan that was prepared by a member of the CPA committee, Dr O.S.B. Baloyi (President: Ximange/Baloyi CPA). Note that the registered CPA is called Ximange CPA but Dr Baloyi refers to it as ‘Ximange/Baloyi CPA’. 34 Note that LUDP is now for the Ximange tribal community and not for the Ximange CPA.

21 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Now the project has 500 chickens, which are sold at six at the farm: weeks old for R23 each. If all the chickens survive and are Last time when we had a funeral for my brother, we were sold, they will generate an income of R9,200. The costs of able to get tomatoes, onions and cabbages from this plot. production include the purchase of four boxes of chicks at We saved a lot of money because vegetables are expensive a cost of R420 per box (R1,680 in total). The cost of feeds in the village [Baloyi, 24/05/2006]. (for starters, growers and finishers) is estimated at R3,152 per batch of 400. The cost of vaccines and other medicines Other people who have good sources of off-farm income are such as chlone 30, hebivex, gumboravex and lasotta are able to cultivate bigger portions. One member, the secretary estimated at R110. The total costs for a single batch of of the CPA, has cleared approximately 5 ha of land, which he 400 chicks are thus estimated at R4,942. The net return to is irrigating; he uses the land on a more commercial basis. Sipho and his wife is thus approximately R4,250, which is However, some other farmers complain that he has taken their salary for the six to eight weeks required per batch of more land than he should and monopolised the irrigation chicks. They are not making enough money to employ extra pipes that were donated to the community. ‘These pipes are people at this stage. not for individuals; he could have shared with the rest of us who do not have’ [Marimi, 24/05/2006]. The household using Individual producers have also started de-bushing a 10-ha 5 ha comprises professionals (teachers) who earn salaries field for cash crop cultivation. This field has been allocated and are thus able to farm on a bigger scale than others. to eight producers who each have plots of between 0.5 and They use their salaries to purchase inputs for their plot. They 5 ha. When it was started, they used their own hand tools produce spinach, chilies and green peas. They have used to de-bush the fields, and at a later stage the Department Landman Vervoer in to transport produce to and of Agriculture provided a bulldozer which greatly assisted market it in Johannesburg, but feel that this was a waste them. Nkuzi Development Association provided diesel of money. A lot of money was spent on intermediaries and for the bulldozer and it was driven by an official from transportation, but some of the produce rotted before it the Department of Agriculture. People involved on this reached Johannesburg and other produce remained unsold, project are producing vegetables such as spinach, beans, with the result that they lost money. They now prefer to sell peas, beetroot, tomatoes, cabbages and pumpkin leaves, locally, including to shops in Makhado. ‘Transporting the and some have produced maize. Production is mainly for produce to the local shops costs me only R30, increasing my household consumption and any surplus is sold on the local chances of making a profit’ [Baloyi, 2/11/2005]. The Baloyis informal market. also employ someone on a full-time basis, who is paid R700 I feel happy here because I have my own piece of land that a month. They also employ seasonal workers for weeding I can grow food for my family [Marimi, 24/05/2006]. and harvesting, paying R25 per day. Their sons occasionally assist the parents on the plot. Mr Baloyi estimated total The irrigated fields were cultivated for the first time in costs for inputs for 2004 at R600 – for seeds, fertilisers, May 2004. In 2004, Sipho and his wife planted a hectare repairing irrigation pipes and cultivation, excluding labour of cabbages, beetroot and onions. In 2005, they planted and transport [Baloyi, 2/11/2005]. The Baloyi family reported tomatoes, spinach, beetroot and onions. From these they that this cultivation is making an important contribution to had a good harvest. Seven crates of tomatoes, two crates of the household diet and income. beetroot, and a crate of onions were sold to the local markets My life has changed now because I can make extra income in the township. ‘From this produce, I am able to feed my from the fields to supplement our household income. Some family and still sell what we are not able to use at home,’ of the produce such as spinach, cabbage and onions have says Sipho. He does not spend a lot in transport because been used for household consumption [Baloyi, 2/11/2005]. people come to the farm to buy vegetables. In terms of marketing, information is spread through community Another member of the community, Mr Khosa, keeps his networks when vegetables are available at a particular plot. son’s cattle on the farm. Currently they have six head of In the first year there were not a lot of inputs made to the cattle, including a calf. field, because the seedlings used were from a starter given I have problems with farming cattle on this farm because from the training he attended but he bought ‘323’ fertilisers there are no camps, and other crop producers complain from NTK in Makhado with money he got from his parents. that my cattle interfere with crop farming. In addition, In the seasons that followed he bought seeds from NTK there is no water for drinking, as a result I use my van to Makhado and from a shop in Vleifontein. Production from fetch water from Elim, approximately 13 km from the farm this field support the family at home and also consumption [Khosa, 16/11/2006].

22 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

This has been the major cost for Mr Khosa so far. According Local Municipality, the Department of Local Government to Khosa, there have not been any sales or benefit for his and Housing, and the Department of Agriculture: household, as they are spending a lot in maintaining cattle The Department of Land Affairs undertakes to release on the farm and building up a herd [Khosa, 16/11/2006]. planning grants and restitution discretionary grants due to this claim. The Regional Land Claims Commission On Uitschot, production is mainly on an individual basis. undertakes to assist the claimant community to negotiate Rain-fed maize, groundnuts, peanuts, pumpkin leaves, beans with the Makhado Local Municipality, the Limpopo and sweet potatoes are produced. Some of the producers Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local also intend to establish orchards with trees such as mango, Government and Housing in accessing all the necessary avocadoes, macadamia and pawpaw. Small patches of development grants available for the development of their vegetable gardens have been established next to streams land (Settlement Agreement entered into between the where producers carry water from springs in buckets to Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and Ximange CPA irrigate their vegetables. One producer also uses a generator 2002). to pump water from a small pond to a tank for irrigation purposes. There are a few houses (some temporary, but also The RLCC has not fulfilled this obligation to date. For ex- permanent mud-brick and cement-brick houses) built on ample, when the beneficiaries visited the local municipality the land where some of the farmers are staying while they requesting a water connection, they were told that the are on the farm, because their homes are far from Uitschot. municipality does not deal with land reform beneficiaries and that they should go to Water Affairs. Other departments One of the producers on Uitschot is Mr Vukela, who moved such as Agriculture do not appear to have a specific strategy onto the land in 2002 around the time the land claim was for dealing with settlements. In terms of the Settlement settled. He is a retired policeman and works the land himself Agreement (2002): without employing anyone. He has cleared approximately The state shall take all the necessary steps to transfer the 12 ha. Five hectares are for his sister while he works on said land to the communal property association … The seven hectares. The cost of clearing and fencing this area department reserves the right to delay transfer until the amounted to R20,000 in 2002 which he received from Ximange Communal Property Association has ratified his retirement annuity. In the initial harvest in 2003, he the terms and conditions of this agreement and has an obtained 80 x 80 kg bag of maize, excluding green mealies approved business plan. which were consumed at home and given to friends and relatives before the main harvest. The harvest has been an To date, the RLCC has failed to transfer land to the Ximange important contribution to the Vukela household’s food and CPA, and has not been able to facilitate the completion of a income because most of the maize was sold in informal business plan, other than a LUDP, which is basically a wish markets in villages. ‘This harvest has encouraged me to list of all the things that the community can do with the work hard because I realised that there is a potential to get farm. returns for what I have invested when using all my pension money’ [Vukela, 02/11/2005]. On another plot, Ms Mihloti Since the drawing up of the LUDP, communication between Annah Mdhuli (63) and her husband (66), both of whom are the CPA and the RLCC has broken down because of the pensioners, are using pension and other savings to purchase unavailability of the ‘main committee, the lack of progress inputs for their plot. They planted maize, groundnuts, sugar in the release of grants and the unwillingness of the official beans, sweet potatoes and peanuts. They earned a cash committee to delegate powers to other, locally based, income in their first year of R3,180. In the years that followed, members [Baloyi, 14/10/2005]. The RLCC has argued that their cash income was as high as R6,000, with the exception the problem is within the main CPA committee who want of 2006, when they harvested very little because of drought the money to be deposited directly into the account of the [Mdhuli, 02/11/2005]. CPA. This is contrary to the practice of the RLCC, which is that grants are paid directly to service providers following Support institutions (government quotations [Shilote, 02/08/2006]. and non-government) The LDA purchased for the Ximange CPA a machinery The RLCC (Limpopo) facilitated the acquisition of ‘starter pack’ consisting of a tractor, disc plough, trailer, Syferfontein under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The planter and rake. The LDA also made available a bulldozer for Settlement Agreement signed by the parties stipulates that the community to use in establishing access roads and fire the RLCC will coordinate the involvement of other parties in belts, and for de-bushing where necessary. The department this settlement. These organisations include the Makhado also provided a driver for the grader for a number of months,

23 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

but the farmers themselves had to pay for diesel. Some The other potential role player is Makhado Local Municipality, members of the community were able to de-bush an area as they are a sphere of government responsible for service of approximately 20 ha for rain-fed crop production. delivery. However, the local municipality has not yet taken any position on how they support beneficiaries of land In addition to the equipment for this settlement, the reform. On numerous occasions, the Ximange community Department of Agriculture has also placed an extension representatives have requested the municipality to provide officer to support producers on Ximange and nearby water and electricity supply to the farm. These efforts have restitution projects. This officer is responsible for provision proved unsuccessful to date because the local municipality of extension support in livestock and crop farming, but claims that it is not their mandate to deal with land claims, rarely visits the farm. In October 2006, the farmers recorded failing to understand that this is not just a land claim but that that the last extension visit was six months ago. a settlement that needs services. The municipality has not Farmers active on the land, particularly in crop production, connected water and electricity, arguing that they cannot are not happy about the extension support which the LDA because the area is not proclaimed as a township (Focus claims to provide. Producers also wish they could be helped Group Discussion 16/10/2006). to access grants from the department, e.g. Comprehensive Agricultural Support (CASP) grants. With CASP they believe that they could establish fencing for the field and grazing camps, and they could also drill water for irrigation, for livestock and for domestic use. Since 2004, producers have requested the LDA to help them access CASP but to date they has not been any reply to their request.

The Department of Agriculture through its education and training arm, Madzivhandila Agricultural College, has trained some of the farmers at Ximange in vegetable production, broiler production and soil analysis. Two members of the community were trained in these areas. This training has helped producers with crop production and broiler production. Although people were trained, some of the trainees feel that a lack of financial resources has prevented them from putting their knowledge into practice.

Further support for farmers at Ximange has been provided by a local land rights NGO, Nkuzi Development Association.

Nkuzi was involved with the facilitation of the land claim up to the point of settlement and assisted with the formation of the CPA. Upon the settlement of the claim, Nkuzi assisted some of the farmers who lived in the local area with poultry production, a macadamia orchard, and a vegetable garden. Nkuzi helped secure grant funding for training in game farming, crop farming, tree management and broiler production. Nkuzi also helped with the purchase of implements such as spades and wheel barrows, as well as bricks and cement for building cages for poultry and pigs. This NGO has also continued to provide advice to the farmers and has worked hard to bring on board the local municipality regarding the incorporation of this and other restitution settlements in the municipal IDP and LED plans. However, the municipality has not been able to put this CPA in the IDP, except for a small budget for the training of claimants in Makhado [Kwinda, 06/08/2006].

24 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

5. Conclusion

This study has identified that challenges for restoration used to stay, I did not have enough yard to be able to projects under restitution lie in two broad areas, namely cultivate vegetables like here at Munzhedzi’ [Malesa, project deign and implementation, and the provision of 10/12/2004]. In Mavungeni and Ximange, the minority post settlement support. The three case studies presented of members who have gained access to the land to here suggest that restitution is not encouraging a range date similarly expressed happiness that they are back of settlement options, such as small family farms, and on their ancestral land and using it for grazing their instead promotes more commercially oriented single- livestock and for ploughing, and some are returning to entity farms which address the needs of small minorities stay, particularly at Mavungeni. However, the majority within the claimant communities. Complementary support of the people have not yet returned to the land services for land reform are not being adequately planned because of lack of resources to make use of the land or implemented, and no clear role has been allocated to and the distances between the farm and their places municipalities. There is a pressing need to augment the of residence. Many of the people have expressed current land reform efforts with services such as affordable disappointment because they expected government credit, extension support, affordable inputs and agricultural to help them relocate to their new land, and so far no training relevant to new entrants to the farming industry. progress has been made

• Secure access to land and provision of Community members at Ximange were found to complementary support services is a critical aspect be producing at a small scale and could not expand in securing improved standard of living for poor due to lack of access to credit and affordable inputs. people. This situation is made worse by the fact that the Access to land is an important step in redressing the development support grants owed to the community injustices of apartheid in South Africa. However, if land by the CRLR have not yet been released to them. is to contribute to improving people’s lives, especially Nonetheless, food production, even at a small scale, those of the very poor, complementary support services does make a significant contribution to household are a critical intervention. Such services are widely well-being. Food security of some households at expected to come from the state because the majority Ximange and Munzhedzi has certainly been improved of land reform beneficiaries are poor people who were through access to productive land, which is of much impoverished through the land dispossession of the better quality than the land they had access to in their previous apartheid government. previous places of residence.

In all the three case studies presented here, land Unlike Munzhedzi, where benefits from the use of reform beneficiaries who are using the restored land are enjoyed by most members, in Mavungeni and land reported that their greatest satisfaction to date Ximange it is limited to a few households who have was regaining land that they could call their own.35 been willing to move onto the land without waiting Degrees of satisfaction vary from site to site. In the for direction from the wider community. However, case of Mavungeni and Ximange, where the majority limited numbers of people, those that have worked have not returned to the land, the emphasis was more the farm, have found satisfaction with production from on the symbolic return of the land. At Munzhedzi, those fields. Both of these communities have been tied where people had resettled on their land, the highest up for lengthy periods in debates about how to use degree of satisfaction was found. This is because the the farms as collective entities, but the example from people have material benefits in the form of land for other such farms in the area suggests that these are housing and ploughing, which has been accessed unlikely to ever get off the ground. In the absence of by the majority of community members. ‘I have my any clear decision or direction, a minority of individual piece of land, so that I am able to produce vegetables households are producing for themselves without and mealies which I can feed to my children. Where I reference to the wider community. There is little doubt

35 Interestingly, none of the communities in question is yet in possession of title deeds to their land, but the members feel that they own the land because the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs came and awarded them the land in settlement of their land claims.

25 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

that many more members of these communities would efforts to get the local municipality to provide such benefit if the land was sub-divided and individual services. In most cases land reform beneficiaries were production was more widely encouraged. Munzhedzi told that land reform is not the competency of the stands out as one of the few land reform projects in local municipality. Likewise, the higher level district the country where the idea of group production was municipality has not yet established what role, if any, discounted at an early stage, resulting in clear benefits it might play in providing support to land reform. Land for its members. reform beneficiaries are, as a result, effectively left without support from any direction. This study suggests that many rural people, especially the poor and unemployed, are able and willing to farm • Absence of support services limits productivity of on a small scale if they are given the opportunity. For farms acquired by large groups through the land them farming is largely driven by food needs and lack reform programme. of alternative employment possibilities. Production The three case studies were all community-based of food crops can make a significant contribution to initiatives that were, in the minds of officials, intended household food needs, even without cash sales. to lead to large-scale collective forms of production. In practice, the only land uses that have emerged have • Local coordination for service delivery is a critical been based on individuals and households, largely gap in post settlement support. against the wishes of official planners. These cases are In South Africa, land reform is the core responsibility of thus characterised by smallholders producing on a the DLA (including the CRLR and the Provincial Land very small scale, largely for household food purposes. Reform Offices) whereas the provincial departments of agriculture deal with matters of agricultural support. The examples of Mavungeni and Ximange reveal Local government, which is legally responsible for major difficulties with regard to farm inputs, extension coordination of local development, typically does not support and credit. Smallholders have struggled to see land reform as part of its mandate and appears expand their production on these farms because to be reluctant to include support to land reform in of lack of irrigation and fencing to ward off stray their IDPs. Local municipalities, where land reform livestock. Individuals have applied for assistance under is implemented, could play an important role if they the Department of Agriculture’s CASP and MAFISA understood their role properly and were given the programmes, but have had no response from the necessary resources. extension officer or the department since. Considering what they have been able to produce so far without The three land reform projects discussed here are the support and with only the most rudimentary forms responsibility of the RLCC for Limpopo. In addition, of irrigation, it is likely that they could greatly expand the Mavungeni case includes a component of SLAG, production if appropriate support could be provided. which is supposed to become the responsibility of the Without it, they are likely to remain stuck at the most Department of Agriculture once DLA has finalised the basic level. land transfer. In Limpopo, the RLCC and the Department of Agriculture have recently started a closer working • Irrelevant and poor planning is among the causes relationship to provide support for land reform. This of failures and collapse of land reform projects. relationship has yet to be firmed up at a local level, For the case studies presented here, the RLCC has been however, through the inclusion of local municipalities. the lead organisation regarding planning for the land The experience of Ximange illustrates the problematic use and development of the acquired land with the relationship with local government. partial exception of Mavungeni where the Provincial On the other hand, the role of DLA’s Provincial Land Reform Office took the lead in planning for the Land Reform Office in land restitution has also not SLAG portion. been well defined. Clear needs exist in many areas, including institutional support to communal property Both DLA and the RLCC require beneficiaries to institutions and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of compile land use and development plans culminating project performance, but these are not being carried in business plans. This phase in the project cycle allows out by any of the existing government bodies. the state to release grants to the community and beneficiaries are thus compelled to draw such plans None of the cases under investigation here have access that conform to official thinking. These formal plans to electricity or safe drinking water, despite numerous are in most cases dictated by private consultants hired

26 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

by the state to assist communities and tend to focus To be successful, projects require the support of narrowly on agricultural production, with neglect of various government departments, with a key role for alternative land uses, including housing. For example, the local municipality. In most cases, municipalities are the LUDP for Ximange completely rules out the bought in to the process at the end of the planning possibility of resettlement of the community on the cycle and are only then asked to budget for support farm, despite the fact that the majority of the members to the project. Hence, none of these projects appear in currently reside between 20 and 70 kilometres away the IDP or LED plans of the local municipality. from the farm. It is difficult to understand how they will farm the land under these conditions. Munzhedzi • Institutional development and support forms a demonstrates the popular demand for resettlement on critical base for sustainable settlements. claimed land, and it is significant that this community Common property institutions such as CPAs and Trusts refused to accept the state-imposed planning process require extensive external support in the short term and resettled themselves in defiance of official wishes. while they endeavour to establish themselves. This is This has in turn meant that they could not access any partly because in most cases they are foreign to the grants because no formal planning has been done land reform beneficiaries and it takes time for people so far, or looks likely to be done at this stage. The to learn new ways of administration of land which priority for members of this community was housing is completely different from the customary ways in a location that provided access to transport routes, in which decisions are made about land allocation and land for small-scale farming. This has now been and use in tribal areas. The three CPAs under study achieved in an egalitarian way, which has provided have not, to date, received any external guidance or direct benefits to most members of the community. training in how to interpret and manage their affairs, including financial matters, dispute resolution or even Planning for land reform needs to be more participatory, the specific rights of members to the land they have more flexible and more realistic, and be properly been allocated. This has led to particular problems at linked to post-planning implementation. The evidence Mavungeni, for example, where there is now a dispute of these three case studies suggests that plans lack around how the benefits arising from group activities clarity in terms of who will provide what support to the should be divided among the community members. land reform beneficiaries. In instances such as Ximange and Mavungeni, there are dissenting views within the Clear systems need to be in place for distribution of communities about how such plans were actually opportunities and benefits among members. It is often developed and approved, as most members appear not clear what the rights of individuals are within these not to have been consulted. In the case of Ximange, large groups. Within CPAs, the rights of individuals is none of the farmers currently on the land supports the a critical issue that needs to be attended to without idea of running a single commercial farming entity. compromise, because without clearly spelling out They believe they should have access to individual rights of individuals, only a few people in the leadership plots for own production rather than a collective will benefit from land reform. Such rights include rights enterprise within which they would have to compete to share in the wealth of the Association, including for limited employment opportunities. Technically, dividends (if there are any) and access to land. these business plans are also unrealistic in that they rely on huge loans and high levels of expertise in farm Productive activities clearly need to be decentralised management and marketing. This raises important to individuals and small groups of members, and not questions around the nature of the planning process, all run through the main CPA committee, which has including the imposition of inappropriate models of effectively collapsed in all three case studies. commercial farming, the lack of popular participation in the process, and around whose needs are being met.

27 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

6. Source documents

Primary sources document Nkuzi Development Association. 1998. A summary of the Munzhedzi community history. Submission to the RLCC in Agriconcept (Pty) Ltd. 2000. Mavungeni SLAG business plan. support of the land claim. Nkuzi Development Association: Elim. Chauke, G. 2003. Letter to the Makhado Local Municipality titled Destabilisation of the Mavungeni area. 28 October Northplan. 2004. Ximange land use and development plan. 2003. Report of a meeting between Nkuzi and Munzhedzi community. 15 October 2000. Mavungeni CPA constitution. 18 March 2002. Ximange CPA constitutions (Different). 22 December 2001 Mavungeni CPA registration certificate. 30 July 2001. and 27 April 2002.

Mavungeni original land claim forms submitted to the CRLR. Ximange CPA registration certificate. 10 May 2002. 16 August 1995 and 18 September 1998. Ximange original land claim form. 27 December 1995. Menné, P.F. 1996. Letter to the land claims committee in support of the land claim, 24 February. Settlement Agreements entered into between the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs (Ms A.T. Didiza) and the Nkuzi Development Association. 1999. Summary of Munzhedzi, and the Ximange and the Mavungeni CPAs. Mavungeni community history. Submission to the RLCC in 2 March 2002. support of the land claim. Nkuzi Development Association: Elim. Nkuzi Development Association. 2002. Planning for sustainable land use: Munzhedzi, Mavungeni and Ximange Wohimu Rural Development. 2005. Mavungeni business CPAs. Report on initial planning for the promotions plan. of sustainable livelihood project. Nkuzi Development Association: Elim. Van Zyl Conveyancers. 2002. Deed of transfer. Executed at Office of Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria. 26 April. Nkuzi Development Association. 2003. Report on Area Land Reform Initiative (ALRI). Pilot project report. Nkuzi A resolution regarding settlement options. 1 March 2001. Development Association: Elim. Munzhedzi Communal Property Association. Urban-econ. 2005. Makhado Local Municipality local Claimants verification list. 2001. Munzhedzi Communal economic development plan. Pretoria. Property Association. Secondary sources documents CPA registration certificate. Munzhedzi Communal Property Nemudzivhadi, M. 1985. When and what? An introduction to Association. the evolution of the history of Venda. Thohoyandou: Office of the President. Minutes of Munzhedzi community meeting. 1 February 1998. List of informants

Munzhedzi Communal Property Association. 2001. Baloyi, C. Crop producer, member of local committee Munzhedzi Communal Property Association constitution. 22 and secretary for the Ximange CPA. Waterval township. December. 2/11/2005.

Munzhedzi land claim form. 22 July 1998. Baloyi, F. Farmer and treasurer of the Mavungeni CPA. Waterval township. 08/08/2006. Mushandana, S. 2005. Letter to the RLCC titled Problems encountered by Munzhedzi CPA. 10 January. Baloyi, S. Poultry and crop producer and member of the local sub-committee for the Ximange CPA. Ephrata. 24/05/2006 Shirinda, S. Inspection in loco report: Vleifontein 310 LS. and 14/10/2005.

28 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

Chauke, G. Ex-chairperson of the Mavungeni CPA. Waterval Nngobo, S. Member of the Munzhedzi CPA. Ha-Munzhedzi. township. 01/08/2006. 22/11/2004.

Khorommbi, M. Extension officer, Makhado Department of Phaswana, J. Member of the Munzhedzi CPA. Ha-Munzhedzi. Agriculture. Elim. 22/04/2005. 20/11/2004.

Khosa. Cattle farmer on the Ximange Communal Property Ramalivhana, D. Member of the Munzhedzi CPA. Ha- Association’s farm. Ephrata. 16/11/2006. Munzhedzi. 16/09/2005.

Kwinda, D. Promotion of sustainable livelihoods project Shilote, B. Project manager for SSDU, RLCC: Limpopo, officer: Nkuzi Development Association. Elim. 06/06/2005, Polokwane. 02/08/2006. 12/10/2005 and 06/08/2006. Shirhinda, S. Deputy chairperson of the Mavungeni CPA. Malesa, C. Member of Munzhedzi CPA. Ha-Munzhedzi. Elim. 06/08/2006. 10/12/2004. Shirhinda, S. Candidate attorney: Nkuzi Development Maluleke, W. Chairperson of the Mavungeni CPA. Waterval Association. Elim. 13/11/2006. township. 07/08/2006. Tovhakale, J. Member of the Munzhedzi CPA. Ha-Munzhedzi. Marimi, J. Crop producer and member of the Ximange CPA. 10/12/2004. Ephrata. 28/04/2005 and 24/05/2006. Vukela, M.A. Crop producer and member of the Ximange Mdhuli, M.A. Producer and member of the Ximange CPA. CPA. Uitschot. 02/11/2005. Uitschot. 02/11/2005. Vukeya. Crop producer and member of the Ximange CPA. Mulaudzi, A. Member of the Munzhedzi CPA. Ha-Munzhedzi. Uitschot. 2006 23/12/2004/ and 29/12/2004. Focus group discussions Mushandana, S. Chairperson of the Munzhedzi CPA. Ha- Mavungeni Poultry Project focus groups discussion. 8 Munzhedzi. 06/12/2004, 22/11/2005 and 22/06/2006. August 2006. Muvhumbe, A. Councillor: Makhado Local Municipality. Munzhedzi CPA committee focus groups discussion. 22–23 Makhado. 03/04/2005. December 2004. Nkatingi, M. Project manager for RLCC: Limpopo, Polokwane. Ximange sub-committee focus group discussion. 16 Telephone conversation on 22/11/2006. October 2006. Nngobo, J. Member of the Munzhedzi CPA. Ha-Munzhedzi. 22/04/2004.

29 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

30 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

31 Restitution and Post-Settlement Support: Three Case Studies from Limpopo

32